I doubt whether such a translation has been presented to the Spanish gentlemen here as they will understand. I am therefore opposed to this report. It contains too many courts; it asserts a principle which I have always denied—that is, the principle of special jurisdiction. I will not give my vote in favor of any Court having special jurisdiction. The principle is a bad one.

Sir, I have practised in a State where there was a court of special jurisdiction, where these very County Courts were organized with probate jurisdiction, and I refer to gentlemen here from the State of Louisiana, if there was not a special Convention to abolish that court in that State. Its evils were so great that it was actually deemed necessary to call a Convention for the purpose of getting rid of them the very same courts here proposed having a special jurisdiction. I say this report contains too much and too little. It has omitted very many necessary things in a system of judiciary. There is no provision for a chief justice; none for impeachment; none for district attorneys, sheriffs, and coroners; none for the jurisdiction of district courts; none for the qualification of judges; none for the jurisdiction of justices of the peace; none for the removal of officers; all impeachments seem to have been placed at the power of the Legislature. Now, I do not wish to place our judiciary at the mercy of the Legislature. I do not believe that the Legislature should have the right to say that a judge of the Supreme Court should be deprived of his office. I think a mode of impeachment should be prescribed by the Constitution; and as to the qualification of judges, shall the Legis. lature say who is to be judge? I think the direct qualification of judges should be established in the Constituiion. Then there is the jurisdiction of the District Courts. I never saw a system which did not establish that jurisdiction in the system itself. I have said that I prefer the minority report. I do prefer it infinitely to the majority report, but at the same time I cannot agree to it entirely. It establishes these same County Courts, with special jurisdiction, against which I fought for years in another State, and against which I hope I will have a majority in this Convention to fight with me. Now, I wish to inquire whether it is intended to try in this special court contested cases. I presume it is not. I have heard that it is merely intended to transact such probate business as is not opposedsuch as granting letters of administration, settling accounts, &c. Now, Mr. Chairman, the first thing we should decide upon is a simple system of courts. Why not say that the clerk of each county shall be empowered to grant letters of adminis'tration and settle accounts where there is no contest? The system which, above all others, I would support would be a system of three courts alone-such a system as that of my friend from Monterey, (Mr. Ord.) A Supreme Court with appellate jurisdiction only, a District Court with universal jurisdiction beyond a certain sum, and a Justices' Court with universal jurisdiction to a settled sum. When one wishes to bring a suit, it is easy for him to know whether his account is over or under $300. He can easily ascertain what court he should go before. Let us therefore establish three simple courts, so organized as to hold their jurisdiction within a certain limited sum. You have there all the officers that are necessary. The Supreme Court, which sits the whole year round for the decision of appellate cases, and which can transact all the appellate business of the State. You have district judges who, instead of spending two, three, or four months from their own districts, to transact the business of another court, are distinct and separate. You have for your justices the ordinary conservators of the peace. You have in your clerks, officers of the court amply sufficient to transact all the unopposed probate business of the country. Where is there a single wheel wanting in the machine? When we have enough let us not take any more. When we have tribunals sufficient, do not call up tribunals to complicate the judicial system of the State. We want simple courts, for, as a population in this country from every portion of the Union and from all parts of the world, we are accustomed to different systems of judiciary and different systems of law. Let us have a system which all the people

can understand; and, if we adopt a simple judicial system, I think we will have a simple system of laws.

Mr. WOZENCRAFT.

I am satisfied of one fact, that we cannot expedite business by debate. I move now that the Committee rise, in order that an appointment may be made of five or six persons by the Chair for the purpose of perfecting a plan to be reported to this House immediately.

The Committee then rose and reported progress.

On motion of Mr. BoTTS, the Secretary was directed to furnish each member with a copy of the judiciary system offered by the gentleman from Monterey, (Mr. Ord.) Mr. CROSBY suggested that the proposition of the gentleman from San Joaquin was the same as he had offered in the early part of the evening.

Mr. SHERWOOD. I am satisfied that the movement is made for a very laudable object that of bringing these three systems proposed together in one report; but I do not believe, from what experience I have had in committee, that any spécial committee can produce a report which can prevent more discussion than what we will have on the propositions now before the House. I have made up my mind in regard to the matter myself, and after this discussion I think every gentleman will be prepared to make up his mind and vote. After looking the ground carefully over, I am satisfied that there can be no compromise in the matter; that the House, after a full and free discussion, must choose between the propositions. I am opposed therefore to its going into any committee. I know that discussion is to be had, and that many gentlemen who are not lawyers have doubts on their minds in regard to which of these propositions should be adopted; but I think they will have the same doubts if this new committee brings in a proposition. The same views will then be advanced that are now advanced.

Mr. HASTINGS. It is my opinion that this matter will be greatly facilitated by the appointment of a committee. What is now before the House is an undigested medley of propositions. We find the two systems, as reported, confused. That of the minority would be a very good one had they continued it, but they have not thought proper to continue it; they have left off at a certain point and taken up the majority report. From whatever Constitution that system was taken, I think it would have our favor if they had gone through with it. A special committee could easily digest this matter, and make a report to the House which I have no doubt would be generally approved.

Mr. McCARVER. I am in favor of referring it back to the Committee on the Constitution, with instructions. The sense of the House in relation to these dif. ferent propositions can be given in the instructions.

Mr. JONES moved that a committee be appointed, with instructions to report in favor of three courts.

Mr. SHERWOOD. I cannot consent to vote for any such instructions, knowing the condition of this country and the difficulty of getting witnesses and jurors far from home. I would not be in favor of trying criminal cases, which under the instructions must be tried in a District Court, in the mining districts of this State. They would have to go from fifty to two hundred miles; you could not get your witnesses that distance. You must have a County Court near to the residence of these persons. I am in favor of a County Court, which the gentleman would exclude. When a murder or robbery is committed, if you wish to punish the crimi. nal, you must have his trial where the witnesses against him will attend; but where the witnesses daily labor is one ounce, or sixteen dollars, you cannot get him to go any great distance to wait upon the court. You must have, as near as possible, justice administered where the crime is committed. Even all City Courts are excluded by his instructions, when most of the legal business will have to be performed in the City Courts.

Mr. JONES. I think my friend from Sacramento founds his argument upon a false supposition; that is, that these District Courts will be held in one particular place, and cannot be held in any other place.

Mr. HASTINGS. I would suggest this amendment: "Three courts, and such other courts as the Legislature shall think proper to create.' Mr. JONES. I accept it. These District Courts, Mr. President, are not neces sarily held in one place alone, during the entire year. A District Court in the district of San Joaquin would not be held at Stockton during the entire year; it would go to every one of the principal mines, and there would be a court there once or twice, or four times, during the year. These witnesses whom the gentleman speaks of would be brought into that court at their own doors. Would this County Court be open all the time? Will the gentleman not give them par. ticular terms? Where is the difference in convenience. Such is the object and intention of separating these courts. It is to give the district judges sufficient time to hold their courts at all the different places in the district. We have con.

tended here, according to the report of the majority, that it is impossible for the district judge to do justice to his district and hold the Appellate Court. I cer tainly cannot agree to the necessity of these County Courts.

Mr. GWIN. I move to go into Committee of the Whole on the judiciary bill; and upon that question I call for the yeas and nays.

Mr. HALLECK. I wish to call the attention of the House to this point. It is proposed here to refer these three reports, as they are called, to a Select Commit. tee, or back to the Committee on the Constitution. I should think it would be very improper to refer it back to the Committee on the Constitution. That Committee, with the Constitution of every State in the Union before it, has been at work three days on this report, and I think, when they have come to an almost unanimous decision, it would be altogether improper to send back the subject to them, and ask them to come to a reverse decision. As to a Select Committee, if they make a report, does it exclude all these propositions before the House? They would all be in order when this report comes in. Instead of three reports to choose from we would then have four. That Committee cannot take this subject into consideration, perfect a judicial system, and make their report in less than twenty-four hours; and the same length of time will be required to make copies of it for the use of the members. I really think the motion of the gentleman from San Francisco (Mr. Gwin) ought to prevail; that we should go into Committee of the Whole, take this question up, and decide it to-night or to-morrow. Other. wise, we certainly cannot get through until next week; and I do not believe we will be able to keep a quorum here beyond Tuesday.

Mr. HASTINGS. I shall oppose referring this to a Select Committee. I would suggest that we take all the various Constitutions and make such a Judiciary sys tem from them as we please.

Mr. BOTTS. I believe, Mr. President, that I am inclined to make as much haste as any member of this House, and the object, the great object I have in referring this matter to a Select Committee, is to get them to examine more carefully than I could, from a casual reading in this House, a set of sections or articles that I believe to be valuable, and which I think would meet the wishes of the House. Mr. TEFFT. I ask for the reading of the motion; and I beg leave to say that I am utterly opposed to this being referred back to the Committee on the Constitution. Mr. SHERWOOD. I have a good many reasons against giving these instructions. I believe every county should pay its own criminal expenses; and that the proper court is the County Court. I will not go into the reasons, for I think the House is prepared to vote on this question.

Mr. LIPPITT. Before the vote is taken, I will simply give notice that, if the resolution now before the House is rejected, I shall offer another resolution, that the fifth article, as reported by the Committee on the Constitution, be referred back to the Committee, with instructions to remodel it so as to provide for the establishment of a Court of Appeals separate and distinct from the Circuit Court, and with certain other amendments. I am satisfied with the report of the Committee as it stands, with the exception that the first four or five sections I conceive to be faulty,

in not providing for a separate Court of Appeals. The alteration which I propose will extend from the first to the fifth section. It is very certain that if the resolution is voted upon as it now stands, that vote will be a test vote. I have no particular desire that it should be made so, and, at the suggestion of any member, I would be willing to modify the resolution so as to make it a mere question of expediency.

Mr. BOTTS. Would it not be well to divide the question as to the appointment of this Committee and the instructions?

The CHAIR stated that the question before the House was on the appointment of a Select Committee of five.

The question was then taken and decided in the negative, by ayes 16, noes 19. Mr. LIPPITT then moved his resolution.

Mr. HASTINGS wished to inquire what was the necessity of pursuing a course of this kind? Could not the House amend the majority report in the manner sug. gested as well as the Committee?

Mr. SHERWOOD hoped the resolution would not be pressed. It would not facili. tate the action of the Convention.

Mr. JONES understood the gentlemen (Mr. Lippitt) that he was satisfied with the report of the Committee, except where it connected the two courts—at least with the first five sections. He would ask him if he was satisfied with the 11th section. Those who chose to vote for it might do so; but, so far as he was concerned, he could not sanction it. He was in favor of no such section. He was opposed to the whole system. He moved to amend the resolution by instructing the Committee to report in favor of the establishment of three courts.

Mr LIPPITT said this would defeat the very object he had in view.
The question was then taken, and the resolution was rejected.

On motion of Mr. GwIN, the House then resolved itself into Committee of the Whole on the Judiciary Bill.

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE.

Mr. SHERWOOD. I believe we are exactly in the same position as we were when the Committee last rose. I am in favor of the majority report with a few amendments, which I conceive it is in the power of any member to make, if the report be adopted in substance. There may be some one or two changes in effect, which I think would obviate the difficulty. In the first place, it creates a court of four judges, called the Supreme Court. Any three of these judges form a Court of Appeals. Each of these four judges is made a chief judge also, and at home is assigned a special portion of the State-a judicial district. If a case is appealed from his decision to the Supreme Court, the three other judges form a Court of Appeals to decide upon it. This at first forms the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals of the State. The Committee were desirous, as much as possible, of decreasing the expenses of the administration of the laws, and therefore proposed but one set of judges to perform the duties of the two highest courts. The Committee were aware that the expenses of the Government would be great in this country; that the salaries of these officers must be high, because their duties were arduous, and because the judges would have to be selected from the first legal characters in the State. At first, they supposed that this court would be all that was necessary; but, at the same time, they give the power to the Legislature, if they desire a separate and distinct Circuit Court with all its expenses, to create such court. It was a matter of economy with the Committee, and their plan does not differ in effect from the minority report, because the Legislature can separate the Circuit from the Supreme Court at its very first session, if it be thought desirable. They also, in the majority report, provide for a County Court and the election by the people, of a county judge, who shall, at the same time be surrogate, and vested with probate powers. They provide, also, for the election of justices

of the peace by the people, who are to hold the court nearest to the residence of the persons who bring the suit. The justice of the peace is selected from the smallest subdivision of the district, and as it is desirable in a country like this where the expense of travelling is so great, and where time is so valuable, that justice should be administered, if possible, at his own door, of course a Justices' Court cannot be objected to. Next to that comes the County Court, which has cognizance of appeals from the Justices' Court. It will only be necessary to carry cases of great moment from the County Court to the Circuit Court. The Legislature are to decide what shall be the jurisdiction of the County Courts. View. ed then, as a matter of expense, I conceive that the majority report of the Committee (which received the sanction, I believe, of all the members except one) is preferable; and in presenting this Constitution to our constituents, it is most desirable, inasmuch as our expenses here have been very large, and as the expenses of the State Government-the Legislature, the Governor, the State officers, the Judiciary, and every other branch-must be very high, that we present a Consti tution which makes as little machinery as the State can get along with, and with no more cogs in the wheels than are actually necessary. If you make fewer of ficers and less expense, the Constitution will receive more votes. In one or two or three years, if the people demand a Circuit Court separate from the Supreme Court, then the Legislature can provide for the separation. For the present, I think four able and distinguished jurists are entirely sufficient to perform the duties of these two courts. I fear nothing from these three judges. They act independently; their judgments are separate and distinct.

I will not proceed further in discussing this question. There are many reasons why I prefer the majority report to either of the reports in question. I think its advantages go through the entire system. It elects its clerks and officers, which is not provided for in at least one or perhaps both of the other plans presented to the House.

Mr. DIMMICK, by permission of the House, made some amendments to his proposition.

Mr. LIPPITT. I wish to state the reason of the vote which I shall give on these propositions. I prefer, as a whole, the majority report of the Committee. There are certainly sections proposed by the gentleman from San Jose (Mr. Dimmick) and the gentleman from Monterey (Mr. Ord) which I would prefer, but I find my self obliged to vote for some system as a whole. I am compelled to select at once one of these three systems. I am satisfied with the report of the Committee, with the single exception, that there is no Court of Appeals separate from the Circuit Court provided for. I have already tested the opinion of the House on this matter, and I find they are not willing to instruct the Committee to provide for the separation. For that reason, I shall vote against every proposition before the House in its present form.

Mr. BOTTS. I wish to know what would be the effect of rejecting the proposi tion of the gentleman from San Jose, (Mr. Dimmick.)

The CHAIR stated that the question would then come up on the amendment of the gentleman from Monterey, (Mr. Ord.)

Mr. CROSBY. I hope there may be some compromise.

The principal ques.

tion at issue is the propriety of a separate Supreme Court and District Court. Mr. BOTTS. I offer this resolution as a test question :

Resolved, That in the opinion of the Committee the Supreme Court of Appeals should be separate and distinct from the District Courts.

The question was then taken, and the resolution was adopted.

The CHAIR stated that the amendment of the gentleman from San Jose (Mr. Dimmick) was before the House.

Some discussion took place here as to the order of reports. Several proposi tions were made to facilitate the action of the House, when finally, without coming to any decision, the Committee rose and reported progress.