industry has often been the ruin of several others. Favor to one is most commonly injustice to all others.

Now, in view of these facts, what is the present situation of California, with regard to this most important question of taxation? There are now, or will be in this country at the time of the ratification of this Constitution, one hundred thousand people living under and enjoying the benefits of the government, and each individual of that number, because he receives the protection of the government, of right is subject to be taxed. Of this hundred thousand persons there may be fif teen thousand native Californians, and of the whole number, not exceeding five thousand are proprietors of landed property, and the great majority of the residue have neither real estate nor personal property that is taxable, and yet most of them with a competency, though it is not tangible. No man can assert that this vast majority of the citizens of California, possessing the greatest amount of wealth, should not contribute to the support of the very government which is founded for their protection and benefit. I do not for a moment, even in thought, do this class of citizens the injustice to believe that they are not only ready but willing to submit to any manner of taxation that is necessary, particularly when informed that the landed proprietors, who of necessity must be taxed heavily, are at the same time willing to submit to a similar tax for the support of government.

There is, Mr. President, probably $40,000,000 of taxable real estate, and as much more of moveable property in this country, at the present time; this, at the amount of taxation to which it is proposed to limit the Legislature, would yield a revenue of $200,000. It is asked, how are we to raise revenue sufficient for the expenses of the State? I answer, impose a capitation tax. I know that this is the most unpopular word that I can use. But I believe that, when it is shown clearly and beyond a doubt that the necessities of the State and the rights of individuals require it, no man but a demagogue will raise his voice against it. I am in favor of, and shall, if called upon, advocate the imposition here of a capi. tation tax for the very reason that the necessities of our country require it, and, the rights and interests of very many of our citizens demand it. I have sufficient confidence in the honesty of the great majority of the people of California to believe that such a tax, instead of being considered a burden, would be cheerfully responded to. I believe that one man, with his census books, can go from San Diego to the most remote settlement on the Sacramento, and the Collector behind him, and that ninety-nine men of every hundred who place their names on the books will pay the tax demanded.

Mr. SHERWOOD. I was forcibly struck with the proposition, that the people taxed should elect the officers who taxed them. Since then, I have had doubts, from the peculiar condition of things and the population of this country, as to the propriety. of saying any thing about it, leaving it to the Legislature to say what way the value of property shall be ascertained and a tax imposed; but, upon further reflection, I have come to the conclusion that there is nothing in the principle involved in either the section originally proposed by the gentleman from Monterey, (Mr. Halleck,) or in the amendment now proposed by the gentleman from San Joaquin, (Mr. Jones,) which should not be adopted in the Constitution. I prefer, however, the amendment of the gentleman from San Joaquin, because, in the first place, it establishes a principle which should be fixed, that property should be assessed and taxed according to its value. That is a fundamental principle. In the next place, it provides that the officers shall be elected by the people of the town, county, or district taxed. I am opposed at all times to the assessing of the value of property by men not acquainted with its value. It is a principle well settled in the old States, that no officer should be sent two or three hundred miles into a district to which he is a stranger, to fix the value of property upon which taxes are to be levied. It is not republican, and I am entirely opposed to it. There are difficul ties which have suggested themselves to some members, on account of the position of property in one portion of this future State, which, upon further.considera

tion, I think may be obviated by the reasoning of these gentlemen. There can be no injustice done in this way-no unequal burdens imposed in different parts of the country. When a State tax is imposed, it is so much upon the dollar. If we have to raise half a million of dollars, we observe the same rule; collect together and report to the Legislature the amount of real and personal property in the State, and that is the way in all the States of the Union. Having this basis, it being ascertained that we have to raise half a million of dollars for a State tax, we then are able to ascertain very nearly what amount of per centage upon the property is necessary to be raised. Now, suppose that upon the whole amount of property in the State assessed and returned to the State Department, it is necessary to levy a tax of five hundred thousand dollars. The Legislature fixes the per centage which will draw the five hundred thousand dollars from the whole amount of property in the State; and they therefore lay a tax of one mill or one per cent-whatever may be necessary-on all the taxable property; and the objection which occurred at first to my mind, and I suppose to the minds of other gentlemen, that property which was in fact valuable say in the southern part of the State-might escape taxation, I think is groundless if this article is adopted. The assessors fix the value, for instance, of a ranche of a thousand acres, or eleven leagues, or any amount you please, and they may fix it at one dollar per acre, or fifty cents. Very well; if they assess equally throughout one district, no citizen is burdened beyond another. Now, so much money is to be raised. The State tax is apportioned around in the different districts, carrying out the assessment rules; and upon these lands so much money is to be raised, and if the lands are valued at one dollar an acre, and the sum amounts to ten cents an acre, that tax must be raised; if the lands are worth ten dollars an acre, then of course the sum will be larger, so that in fact there is no difficulty in the matter. They may lower the amount; they may in any portion of the State elect assessors who will bring down the assessed value of the property; yet they must bring in a certain amount. No portion of the State can elude taxation if this clause is adopted. Taking this view of the matter, which to my mind is clear and unquestionable; taking the ground, too, that men should be selected in the district where the property is located, and who know the value of the property, I am in favor of the amendment of the gentleman from San Joaquin. It says expressly that property shall be taxed according to its value, and the officers shall be elected in the town, county, or district where the property is located. Suppose these officers forswear themselves and do not give the true value of the property, then they violate that fundamental law which says that it shall be assessed according to its value; and will your Legislature, viewing the conduct of these officers-the complaints made that officers do not value the property at what it is worth-will they sanction it? They will punish offenders by penal enactment; they will provide that officers shall be elected, in the first place, to look over the assessment rules to see whether these officers did their duty or not. But I do not fear any such thing. All portions of the State are prepared to pay a just tax upon their property. I am willing, therefore, to take this clause, because it is republican in its character and right in its nature-that property shall be taxed according to its value, and assessments made by persons acquainted with its value.

Mr. BoTTS. I'am somewhat like my friend from Sacramento (Mr. Sherwood) in one thing. When this clause was proposed in the Committee of the Whole Í did not know that there was any material objection to it, and it was not until last evening that I began to consider it in its true and proper light. When the gentleman from San Luis Obispo (Mr. Tefft) called the attention of the House to the particular state of things existing in California, where there are divers local interests, according to the different sections, then it was that I saw that this provision might do harm. If the interests of all sections were alike, there would be no difficulty or danger in this proposition; but we are told, sir, from the best authority, that the gentlemen of the southern portion of this country do consider that their local interests upon the subject of taxation are directly opposite to the

interests of another and much larger portion; and that they claim here, in this House, that they may be permitted to sit in judgment upon the amount of taxation that they shall pay. Mr. President, I do not believe even that the proposition. they ask for is usual. We have been told, sir, by one gentleman-my colleague from Monterey (Mr. Halleck)-that this provision, as proposed by him, is just the provision of the Alabama Constitution. I thought it was somewhat remarkable that it should be so; that any person or any set of persons, by any Constitution, should be allowed to assess the value of their property to be taxed. If the bare proposition were before you that A, B, or C should be permitted to fix his own value upon his own property, who would entertain it for a moment? No one; and yet this proposition is this: that a particular county, sparse in its population, probably consisting wholly of landed proprietors, shall meet together and shall elect an individual for no other purpose than that of assessing and valuing these lands. We are told, sir, by the gentleman from Santa Barbara (Mr. Noriego) that they will act under the influence of an oath. An oath! Remember, sir, who that man is likely to be-elected by these individuals; remember the interest they have in selecting a particular individual, and that he will in all probability be one of the most extensive landholders himself. His interest is identified with theirs, and that interest is to put these lands at the very smallest value. Sir, I thought it was strange that such a provision should exist in the Constitution of Alabama, and I turned to it, and all I can see upon the subject is this: "All lands liable to taxation in this State shall be taxed in proportion to their value." That is a very short sentence. It is exceedingly strange that the gentleman should read that line and contend that it was the proposition of the gentleman from Monterey. It is exactly the proposition of the gentleman from San Fran. cisco, (Mr. Lippitt,) except that it does not say, but leaves to inference, that the mode of ascertaining the value shall be ascertained by law. It implies exactly what the Constitution of Louisiana expresses, and so far from being identical with the one proposition it is exactly identical with the opposite proposition.

Mr. President, I was sorry to hear the gentleman from San Luis Obispo, although he disclaimed it, repeat the declaration that the object of this provision was to guard the original citizens of California from oppression by those who have come here, and who are the majority. Sir, is not the position that these gentlemen occupy here a sufficient guaranty that no such thing is intended? Do we not present here the noblest spectacle that the world has ever seen? It has been the custom of other nations, who were the conquerors, to trample to the dust the rights of the conquered; but what do you see here? You see these gentlemen admitted to exactly the same platform that you occupy yourselvestaken to your hearts as friends and brothers; and here, when they sit upon this floor, treated with a degree of deference and respect that no other members in this Convention can command. Is not that a guaranty-a sufficient guarantythat they who have done this will never do them wrong? I say, sir, it is not to be permitted; if there be these local interests they ought to be restrained from doing injustice to others with contrary interests; if suspicions are raised against the majority, why may not the majority entertain suspicions against the minority, who were the first to raise suspicions? If the northern portion of the country is to be charged with a design to throw an undue burden of the taxation of the State upon the southern portion, why may not, upon the very same foundation, the charge be thrown back; and why may we not aver that these gentlemen, in assessing their own lands, may avoid their proportionate burden of taxation? Remember, sir, that there is a very important point involved in this question of assessed value. I have heard a gentleman lay down this doctrine, and probably a gentleman who would be a voter for it; he honestly entertains this opinion: that an individual who owns eleven leagues of land, for which he could at any day receive from others a hundred thousand dollars, that that land should be assessed not according to its worth in the market, but according to the income

which he receives from it under the present circumstances of the country, which may not possibly be $500. Do you not know that this does frequently happen? It happens if property is not at all productive and yet exceedingly valuable. How would it work, for instance, in towns and villages, according to this rule of estimate?

Why, sir, the owners of untenanted houses would go scot free, whilst an individual with a much smaller amount of property would be liable for his proportion of taxes. This might be found to be the opinion of the assessor that is elected by these persons. This is one view of the question. What, on the other hand, is the proposition of the gentleman from San Francisco, (Mr. Lippitt,) which I advocate upon this floor? It is this: that the Legislature may have an opportunity of trying and testing this doubtful question, and seeing how these things will work; that the whole people of the country, who are interested in this matter, may have an opportunity of seeing how the arrangement for assessing this value proposed by one Legislature shall work; and if it works injustice, that they may have an opportunity of repealing it; and that is the great advantage of legislative instead of constitutional action. If ever it was politic to submit any question to the Legislature, it seems to be it is peculiarly so in the present extremely doubtful question. There is no other way of arriving at a just conclusion except that of trial; and with the Legislature resides the power of altering or amending, as circumstances may require. If it were proposed that the taxes for county purposes were to be raised by an assessment upon the value of that land, nothing could be more proper than that the assessors of the value of the land should be chosen alone by a vote of the county; but you do not mark the difference. This is not for the expenses of the county; it is a tax for the support of the State. Each county has to bear its general proportion of the burden of taxation for the whole country; and every individual is interested in this assessment, which in the other case would be confined to the particular voters of the county themselves. The distinction is marked and manifest. With these few remarks I dispose of the gentlemen who have preceded me, with the exception of the gentleman from Sacramento, (Mr. Sherwood,) and I have only one or two observations to make in answer to his argument. I very much have liked all my life the proposition of that gentleman that the proper mode of raising taxation is by a per centage upon property, without regard to the character or quality of it. I hold nothing to be more true than that government is instituted for the preservation of life, liberty, and property, and that he who holds property ought to pay for the protection of that property in propor tion to the amount that is protected; and that I say without any regard to the kind of property, because all men have an equal right to acquire any kind of property they please. I like the doctrine, but I do not see how the gentleman applies that doctrine to carry out his particular views or his support of this proposition. He tells you that, when that per centage is laid, no portion of the State can elude its proportion of the taxation. Why not, sir? Where is the difficulty? You have got, it is true, $100,000 to raise, and a per centage of one per cent. is to be paid upon all the wealth of the country; but if you will permit me to assess the value of my own property, I will pay a per centage on it and pay a very small portion of my burden of taxation. It does not alter the case at all. How will you ascertain the value of this property? Whether the ad valorem principle or direct principle be resorted to, it is equally important to fix the actual value in order to obtain the proper proportion of taxation. How would the gentleman under this principle ascertain the per centage? The Legislature is to fix the amount required, and proportion it among the several counties. You must know the amount of property in the State. How are you to get at it? I consider this proposition to be equiva lent to this. Let every man send in his assessment of his property; let every county with these divers local interests choose their assessors, with instructions how they are to assess the property. It is but one remove from the odious principle that a man shall have a perfect right to fix his property at what he pleases.

It has been said here that we may well adopt this; that the Legislature never will send assessors from one part of the State to another. That may be true, but there are a good many other things that the Legislature may do. If an individual is to be elected as an assessor, it may take this precaution-that he be elected also for another purpose; that he be sheriff of the county. They may interpose a thousand guards and checks, which neither you nor I can think of in a minute's warn. ing; and therefore it is that I propose to leave it to those who have more timewho have years and years of reflection-to determine how these evils on the one hand and on the other shall be avoided; how such assessments as will operate justly and equitably shall be fixed, and such as will prevent that wrong which gentlemen from below fear, whilst they may also avoid that wrong which other portions perhaps are justified in fearing from the suspicions raised.

With regard to a capitation tax, I, sir, who am not afraid to avow any thing on the face of the earth, who have been taught all my life just to think what I please and say what I think, I am in favor of a capitation tax. Go tell that to the people. I am in favor of taxing every man's head, but not laying the whole burthen of taxation there.

Mr. TEFFT. That is not assumed here.

Mr. BOTTS. Then I am with the gentleman. This clause only provides how property shall be taxed; it leaves to the Legislature to fix a tax upon every man in the country as it chooses. Then there is no argument between us at all on the subject of taxation; no difference of opinion. Mr. President, I believe that, under the circumstances, I am through with what I have to say, although I am well aware that there is an infinite deal more to be said against the clause which has been reported by the Committee of the Whole, and which I hope will not be permitted to pass this House.

Mr. SNYDER. I hold in my hand the report of the Committee of Ways and Means. At the time that report was introduced, I anticipated this discussion. I foresaw what the result would be, and last night, when the gentleman from San Luis Obispo (Mr. Tefft) addressed the House, the position he took did not astonish me. The report of the Committee is the basis of it; there is a line of distinction drawn in that report between the native and the American population of California. It is to that portion of the report that speaks of the poverty of the people of the southern portion of California that I will call your attention.

have a great respect for the people of the south. I have known many of them personally for several years, and would be sorry to see any thing placed upon the records of this Convention lowering them in the estimation of our friends at home. As regards the poverty of these people, I will merely state that there are now some of their representatives in this House, and I have no doubt that they would treat with the greatest indignation any effort made by any person to look upon them as objects of charity. I therefore think, Mr. President, that is in bad taste, if not altogether superfluous, to hold them up in that light. First, I would ask you, sir, if any of the people from the south have ever been in the placers, and if they have ever obtained any of the gold that the report speaks of as having been obtained by the people of the upper districts? Secondly, I would ask whether any of the people of the south have ever driven their horses and cattle into the upper districts to be sold? I will answer the first question by asserting that I have seen many of the Southern inhabitants of this country in the mines, with numbers of their servants, obtaining immense quantities of gold. There is another part of the report from which we are to infer that the discovery of the gold mines has inflicted the deepest injury on this portion of the Territory, where but two years since were concentrated its wealth and population.

Now, sir, I would ask, from what the advantages of the people of the lower part of California were derived two years since, that made the wealth of that portion of the country so highly concentrated? What had they to sell? Hides and tallow, aguadiente and wine. The hides and tallow constituted the bulk of their trade.