Mr. BOTTS. The particular question under discussion here, the boundary be tween Mexico and California, is not touched at all. As to the fact that the Con. gress of the United States have adopted the line as laid down in Fremont's map, do you know what it amounts to? Col. Thomas H. Benton, upon the floor of the Senate of the United States, looking directly to the valuable character of the explorations made by his son-in-law, Col. Fremont, and according to him that credit to which he is so justly entitled, with the unanimous approbation of the Senate, proposed this: that Col. Fremont's explorations and maps should be printed for the use of the Senate, and I believe it was unanimously agreed to. The Senate ordered the printing of five thousand copies of this map of Fremont's explorations. That is the full extent to which this is an official map; and yet we are told that the Senate adopted this line between New Mexico and Califor nia; that is, that every Senator pledged himself, and the President of the United States pledged himself, to every line upon this map, printed by order of the Senate !

After some discussion as to the order of amendments,

Mr. PRICE withdrew his proposition, to allow Mr. Hill to propose the follow. ing:

The boundary of the State of California shall be as follows:-Beginning at the point on the Pacific Ocean, south of San Diego, to be established by the Commission of the United States and Mexico, appointed under the treaty of the 20th February, 1848, for running the boundary between the territories of the United States and those of Mexico; and thence along said line, until it reaches the mouth of the Rio Gila; thence along the centre of the Rio, Colorado, until it strikes the 35th degree of north latitude; thence due north, until it intersects the boundary line between Oregon and California; thence southerly along the coast of the Pacific, including all the islands and bays belonging to California, to the place of beginning.

Mr. ELLIS moved the previous question.

Mr. MCDOUGAL said it was very important that every member of the House should be present to vote upon this question. He therefore hoped the question would not be pressed at present, and moved a recess till three o'clock. The House then took a recess till 3 P. M.

AFTERNOON SESSION, 3 O'CLOCK, p. M.

The CHAIR stated that there was some doubt in regard to the question first in order. If the original report of the Committee on the Boundary was beyond the réach of the House, then the report of the Committee of the Whole would be the primary question.

Mr. JONES said that the proposition of the gentleman from San Francisco (Mr. Price) having been withdrawn, the proposition submitted by him would come next to the report of the Committee of the Whole, and that of the gentleman from San Diego (Mr. Hill) next to his.

Mr. GILBERT supposed the proper way of getting at the difficulty would be to have the House decide whether the report of the Committee on the Boundary or the report of the Committee of the Whole should be the main question.

Mr. FOSTER moved to suspend the rules, so as to enable the Convention to take up and decide upon the several propositions, without regard to the usual parlia mentary order of proceeding.

The CHAIR stated that the question then would be which 'one of the reports should be taken up for consideration.

Mr. SHERWOOD moved to take up Mr. Jones's proposition, which was agreed to. Mr. GILBERT. A question of order was yesterday raised in regard to the divisibility of a question of this kind, with a proviso attached to it. The Chair decided that it was divisible, and that the question would first fall upon the main proposition, preceding the proviso. It is my opinion that the question should first have been taken upon the proviso. That, I believe, when a division is made, is the parliamentary usage.

motion.

:

If I understand this question, one party are for a definite and limited boundary, claiming it as an ultimatum, and leaving it to Congress to adopt us with that bounda ry or reject us entirely. To prevent any difficulty in claiming the whole of this territory, the other party are in favor of a proviso, leaving the boundary to be determined by Congress in conjunction with the Legislature of this State, in case of objection to the line proposed in our constitution. It strikes me that the test question is this shall we have an unconditional and definite boundary, claiming it as our right, or shall we fix a boundary, also claiming it as our right, but leaving it to Congress to settle it with the consent of our Legislature. Now, I shall move to strike out the proviso of the gentleman from San Joaquin, (Mr. Jones,) which will settle the point in dispute, although I am not favor of the proposition. If we cannot have the whole of California, if we cannot present an undivided front on the Sierra Nevada, I am not for going into the middle of the Great Desert and making our dividing line there. If we cannot claim the whole, let us claim only that which we have a right to claim, and that which we can extend our institutions over and do justice to the people who live within it. It is for this reason that I make the While I am with those who claim the whole territory; while I believe, by adopting that policy, we can settle forever the question that is likely to divide the Union, still, when a majority of this Convention say that they cannot go with us, then I wish to limit the State to the most compact boundaries. If we cannot include the whole of the Great Desert, let us say we do not want any part of it. Matters were brought up here to-day about the exact lines of that boundary, which in my view are considerations of no importance. It makes very little difference to me whether they take a few Indian villages from New Mexico, or give a few to New Mexico. I contend that, by taking the larger boundary, we settle the question of slavery over the territory included within it, and that every man who wishes well to the Union would wish that question settled. I desire the proposi tion to come distinctly on this point, and I think my motion accomplishes the object. While I am upon this subject, Mr. President, allow me to notice one of the arguments advanced against the proposition to include the whole territory. It is urged upon this floor that it is not republican or democratic to include within the boundaries of this State the Mormons; that they have no representation in this Convention; no voice in the formation of this constitution; and that they could have none in our Legislature. Admitting these facts, sir, I say it is still another and perhaps a greater principle of republicanism that the majority should rule and does any gentleman here pretend to say that, if this constitution is adopted by the whole people of California west of the Sierra Nevada, they will not constitute a majority of the people of California, Mormons and all. We are told that there are thirty thousand Mormons in the valley of the Great Salt Lake. Now, from the best information, I do not believe that there is half that number. admitting that there are thirty thousand, how many voters will they have? Five thousand voters. If this constitution does not get more than double that number of votes, it ought not to be the constitution of California. I think then, if gentle. men will insist upon one principle, that they ought not to forget that there are others, and that they will find this perhaps a better test of republicanism than the principle first stated. As a test question, therefore, I would suggest that all after the words fixing a definite boundary be stricken out.

But

Mr. BOTTS. I believe every gentleman knows that I am in favor of the Sierra Nevada; but I said to-day, and mean to adhere to it, that for a compromise I would go as far as the middle of the desert. I now rise to a question of order. The gentleman from San Francisco (Mr. Gilbert) is out of order. His proposition to amend by striking out the proviso is an amendment to an amendment to an amendment. It is also out of order on another ground. It leaves you the original proposition, (Mr. McDougal's,) which has already been voted down.

Mr. GILBERT. I would simply state to the gentleman from Monterey (Mr. Botts) that I was aware that my motion was out of order, and that I only gave

;

notice of it for the information of the House; but in regard to the gentleman's statement that the proposition of Mr. McDougal would be out of order, I think that, upon a reconsideration of the whole question, he (Mr. Botts) will admit himself to be mistaken. Under the reconsideration the original motion of Mr. McDougal could be moved as a new proposition. I merely suggested by my motion to make it a test question. So far as I know, the gentlemen who voted for taking in this whole boundary are anxious not to divide the Great Desert, but take the limits of the Sierra Nevada.

Mr. McCARVER here rose to speak, but was interrupted by calls for the question.

Mr. McCARVER. If the gentleman from San Francisco is to have a privilege which I am denied upon this floor- [Cries of question! question! let us have the question!] I protest against it as an outrage. If you deny me any privilege, you deny the rights of my constituents. I have never occupied the time of the House upon this question. I deny your right to put me down in this manner. Gentlemen have spoken twice, or three times, and I am to be debarred from the privilege of speaking once! If the District of Sacramento is to be cut off from her proper representation in this Convention, whilst San Francisco is allowed to be heard on all occasions, I want to know it-I want the people of Sacramento to know it. [Great confusion, and repeated calls for the question.] I will not be insulted-my constituents shall not be insulted. If this House is to stamp me down and allow other individuals to speak as often as they please, I shall no longer remain here. [Mr. McCarver thereupon left the Hall.]

Mr. MCDOUGAL. I hope my colleague, Gen. McCarver, may be excused. It is a matter of personal feeling with him ever since the sad fate of his free negro project. The news brought down from San Francisco on that melancholy occasion has made him very sore in regard to anything coming from that district.

Mr. SHERWOOD moved a call of the House; it was ordered, and 39 members answered to their names. The Sergeant-at-arms was furnished, by order of the President, with a list of the absentees, with directions to require their attendance forthwith; when, a quorum being present, on motion of Mr. Sherwood, further proceedings under the call were suspended.

A division of the question was moved, on Mr. Jones's proposition, so that the vote should be taken on the first and second clauses separately.

The PRESIDENT decided that the question was divisible. From this decision an appeal was taken, and the decision of the Chair was reversed.

The question recurring on the adoption of Mr. Jones's proposition, the yeas and nays were ordered, and resulted as follows:

YEAS.-Messrs. Aram, Brown, Dimmick, Gilbert, Hanks, Hoppe, Hobson, Hollingsworth, Jones, Moore, Reid, Sherwood, Stearns-13.

NAYS-Messrs. Botts, Carrillo, Covarrubias, Crosby, Dent, Dominguez, Ellis, Foster, Gwin, Hill, Halleck, Hastings, Larkin, Lippitt, McDougal, Norton, Ord, Pedrorena, Price, Pico, Rodriguez, Sutter, Snyder, Shannon, Steuart, Tefft, Vallejo, Vermeule, Walker, Wozencraft, President-31.

Mr. STEUART moved to take up the proposition of the gentleman from San Diego, (Mr. Hill,) which was agreed to.

Mr. JONES said his reason for voting against this proposition was that it was not less objectionable than any proposition which had come before the House. Mr. CARRILLO remarked that so much had been said on this subject that he supposed the Convention was heartily tired of it. He, therefore, against his own opinion, and, perhaps, against the interests of California, felt constrained to vote in favor of the proposition of the gentleman from San Diego, (Mr. Hill,) so as to put an end to this question, and have some boundary.

Mr. COVARRUBIAS said he held an entirely different view from that just stated. This Convention was assembled here for the purpose of performing certain duties, and whatever debate might arise on questions presented to the considera

tion of the House, he thought it was the duty of every member to hear everything that was said, especially on a question of so much importance as this, and therefore he did not approve of the sentiments expressed by his friend from Los Ange los (Mr. Carrillo.)

Mr. CARRILLO said the reasons which he had avowed for the vote which he intended to give on this proposition was a matter for which he alone was responsible. The gentleman (Mr. Covarrubias) should keep his personalities to himself and vote as he thought proper, without undertaking to hold other members accountable for their votes.

Mr. LIPPITT gave notice, that in the event of all the amendments now before the House being rejected, he would move the first part of the proposition of the gentleman from Sacramento, (Mr. McDougal,) adopting the Sierra Nevada as the definite boundary line.

Mr. HALLECK gave notice, if the House came to the determination not to adopt any of the propositions, he would move that the constitution go without any fixed boundary, leaving the question to be decided by the Congress of the United States.

Mr. TEFFT thought this compromise had turned out to be a perfect farce. Many members were compelled to vote for a proposition which they were opposed to, from the fear of getting no boundary at all.

The question was then taken on Mr. Hill's proposition, and it was adopted, as follows:

YEAS.-Messrs. Aram, Botts, Brown, Carrillo, Crosby, Dominguez, Foster, Hill, Hoppe, Hastings, Jones, Larkin, McCarver, Ord, Pedrorena, Price, Reid, Sutter, Shannon, Steuart, Vallejo, Vermeule, Walker, President.-24.

NAYS.-Messrs. Covarrubias, Dent, Dimmick, Ellis, Gilbert, Gwin, Hanks, Hobson, Halleck, Hollingsworth, Lippitt, Lippincott, Moore, McDougal, Norton, Pico, Rodriguez, Snyder, Sherwood, Stearns, Tefft, Wozencraft,-22.

Mr. McCARVER here asked to be excused from further attendance, inasmuch as he considered that himself and the district which he represented had been treated with disrespect by the interruption of his remarks this morning.

Several members disclaimed, on the part of the House, any intention of disrespect or want of courtesy towards the gentleman from Sacramento; whereupon, Mr. McCarver expressed himself satisfied.

Mr. GWIN moved that the article on the boundary be engrossed for a third reading, and stated that inasmuch as he would prefer having no boundary at all to the one just adopted, he would vote against the engrossment.

Mr. HALLECK said he would suggest one other remedy in regard to this boundary to put in a proviso that the Legislature and Congress might fix upon the Sierra Nevada.

Mr. PRICE said he was confident a majority of the members of this House were in favor of the Sierra Nevada line. If the last vote could be reconsidered, he had no doubt that line would be adopted.

Mr. BOTTS was opposed to the line adopted, and greatly preferred the Sierra Nevada; he would therefore vote against the engrossment.

Mr. DENT gave the same reasons for his vote.

Mr. HALLECK thought the object could be attained in this way.

The Chair

had put the question, and it had been decided by yeas and nays, as to this amend. ment; but the question had not yet been put upon the report of the Committee of the Whole, as amended. The House could reject that report, as amended by this proposition.

Mr. JONES said he would vote against the engrossment, in the hope that a line which would please him better might be proposed.

Mr. LIPPITT stated, as the reason of his vote, that if this line was rejected, he desired to offer the proposition of which he had given notice.

Mr. TEFFT said he would vote against the engrossment, for the purpose of getting the original report of the Committee as the boundary.

Mr. SHERWOOD Would also vote against the same for the same reason.

Mr. VERMEULE said that the proposition of the gentleman from San Joaquin, (Mr. Jones.) having been lost and another adopted, he would vote against the engrossment, in the hope that the Sierra Nevada line would be adopted, as it seemed to be the only compromise left.

The question was then taken on the engrossment, and it was decided in the negative as follows:

YEAS.-Messrs. Aram, Botts, Brown, Crosby, Dominguez, Ellis, Foster, Hill, Hoppe, Hastings, Larkin, Ord, Pedrorena, Price, Reid, Shannon, Steuart, Vallejo, Walker, President-20. NAYS.-Messrs. Covarrubias, Dent, Dimmick, Gilbert, Gwin, Hanks, Hobson, Halleck, Hollingsworth, Jones, Lippitt, Lippincott, Moore, McCarver, McDougal, Norton, Pico, Rodriguez, Sutter, Snyder, Sherwood, Stearns, Tefft, Vermeule, Walker-29.

Mr. JONES then moved the adoption of the first branch of his proposition.

Mr. SHERWOOD moved as an amendment, the report of the Committee of the Whole.

The question being taken on the proposition of Mr. Sherwood, it was rejected as follows:

YEAS.-Messrs. Covarrubias, Dimmick, Dominguez, Foster, Gilbert, Gwin, Hobson, Halleck, Hollingsworth, Moore, Norton, Pedrorena, Pico, Rodriguez, Sherwood, Stearns, Vallejo, Wozencraft.-18.

NAYS.-Messrs. Aram, Botts, Brown, Crosby, Dent, Ellis, Hanks, Hill, Hoppe, Hastings, Jones, Larkin, McDougal, Ord, Price, Reid, Sutter, Snyder, Shannon, Steuart, Vallejo, Vermeule, Walker, President-24.

Thereupon, the question recurring on the proposition of Mr. Jones, it was adopted by the following vote, viz:

YEAS.-Messrs. Aram, Botts, Brown, Covarrubias, Crosby, Dent, Dominguez, Ellis, Gilbert, Gwin, Hanks, Hastings, Hoppe, Hollingsworth, Jones, Larkin, Lippitt, Lippincott, McCarver, McDougal, Norton, Ord, Price, Rodriguez, Reid, Sutter, Synder, Shannon, Steuart, Vermeule, Walker, President.-32.

NAYS.-Messrs. Dimmick, Foster, Hill, Hobson, Pedrorena, Vallejo, Wozencraft-7.

On motion of Mr. SHANNON, the article just adopted, was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading.

The House then adjourned to 7 o'clock, P. M.

NIGHT SESSION, 7 O'CLOCK, P. M.

The Preamble to the constitution was read the third time and passed.

On motion of Mr. HALLECK, it was ordered that the article on the Boundary be inserted in the constitution immediately preceding the schedule.

Article I of the constitution on the "Declaration of Rights," was taken up, read the third time, a few verbal errors corrected, and then passed.

Article II on the "Right of Suffrage," was then taken up, read the third time, and passed.

Article III on the "Distribution of Powers," was taken up, read the third time, and passed.

Article IV on the "Legislative Department," was taken up, read the third time, several errors in phraseology corrected, and then passed.

Article V on the "Executive Department," was taken up, read the third time, one or two verbal errors corrected, and the article then passed.

Article VI on the "Judiciary," was then taken up, read the third time, and passed.

Article VII on the "Militia," was taken up, read the third time, and passed. On motion, the report of the Committee of the Whole on the "Schedule," was taken up, the amendments proposed by that Committee concurred in, and the article, thus amended, ordered to be engrossed for a third reading.

Article VIII on the "State Debt," was taken up, read the third time, and passed. Article IX 66 on Education," was taken up, read the third time, and passed.