The clause might possibly be subject to two constructions. It might be said, that by choosing to become citizens of the United States they so became, or that they showed a disposition to become so. He (Mr. Jones) thought the 9th article settled the question :

"The Mexicans who, in the Territories aforesaid, shall not preserve the character of citizens of the Mexican Republic, conformably with what is stipulated in the preceding article, shall be incorporated into the Union of the United States, and be admitted at the proper time (to be judged of by the Congress of the United States) to the enjoyment of all the rights of citizens of the United States, according to the principles of the Constitution; and in the meantime, shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty and property, and secured in the free exercise of their religion without restriction."

Now, the treaty provides, that they shall be incorporated into the Union, and be admitted at the proper time. They must make application for admission. You do not admit citizens into the Union, and makes them citizens of States by treaty. This is a union, not of men, but of States. It has been well said to-day, that a man might be a citizen of the United States, and still not have the right to vote. It is not Congress that decides—it is the State. The Constitution gives to the States the right to determine who shall be voters. The State of Virginia denies to a great portion of its citizens the right of voting. The State of Louisiana, until lately, did the same. The State of Massachusetts requires that a man shall pay a stated tax in order to have the right. He (Mr. Jones) held that the citizens of Mexico, as recognized by the treaty of peace and the Constitution of the United States, are fully represented on this floor, that they have, in accordance with their privi lege, voted for members of this Convention, and are, therefore, as much represented as other American citizens; and that the Constitution has given to the Convention the right to declare what shall be the qualification of voters in this State.

Mr. HASTINGS asked whether the Mexican law had been obtained on this subject. Mr. JONES stated that he had the Constitutions of 1824 and 1836. The Con stitution, however, of 1843, established different rights of Mexican citizens, and consequently would govern all previous laws.

Mr. McCARVER could see nothing in the treaty to give this class of citizens the right of suffrage. This Convention was perfectly competent to allow or deny them that right whenever it thought proper. The usual mode is to require from those who desire to become citizens the oath of allegiance.

Mr. TEFFT was in favor of Mr. Gilbert's amendment. He thought it covered the whole ground. It permitted all those persons to vote who enjoyed that privi lege under the Mexican laws. Very few Indians were allowed to vote under Mexican law. He was quite satisfied this amendment would meet with the approbation of those interested in the matter.

Mr. HOPPE said that his reason for moving to strike out the words "not taxed," was, that the whole Indian race should be excluded from the elective franchise. Mr. SHERWOOD presumed the motion to insert would render a motion to strike out unnecessary. If the words were not inserted, they would be stricken out. Mr. WOZENCRAFT wished gentlemen to reflect, that there are Indians by descent, as well as full-blooded Indians. He supposed the majority of the members on this floor were not willing to deprive the descendants of Indians of the elective franchise. Many of the most distinguished officers of the Mexican Government are Indians by descent. At the same time, it would be impolitic to permit the full-blooded Indians who held property to vote. Those who held property, would, of course, be taxed. Capitalists could, for special purposes, make them purcha sers of property. He was, therefore, in favor of the amendment as first proposedto exclude all Indians.

Mr. BOTTS desired to have the sense of the House in regard to the words "not taxed." He was willing to accept that amendment, if it was the wish of the House; but not otherwise.

The CHAIR stated that the proper course would be, to take the question on the amendment as it originally stood, and then on the words "not taxed,” as an additional amendment.

Mr. HOPPE remarked, that in the district of San Jose there were not less than two hundred Indians who would become taxable. Was it proper that they should vote? The consequences of such a provision would be most injurious.

Mr. GWIN said the gentleman from San Jose (Mr. Hoppe) could accomplish his object by withdrawing his amendment, until the vote was taken on the amendment of Mr. Botts.

Mr. NORIEGO desired to say a word in reply to the gentleman from San Jose, (Mr. Hoppe) who stated that there were at least two hundred Indians in that district, who would become taxable. He (Mr. Noriego) requested that gentleman to place himself in the position of one of those Indians. Suppose he had to pay an equal tax with all other persons, to sustain the expenses of the State? Would it not be most unfair to deprive him of equal privileges, when he had to bear an equal burden? The gentleman, he hoped, would readily perceive the great injustice of such a provision in the Constitution.

The question was then taken on the amendment offered by Mr. Botts, to Mr. Gilbert's amendment, and it was adopted.

The question then being on the motion to strike out the words "not taxed," Mr. DENT observed that it might be a weakness in him, but he had always entertained a peculiar deference for the Indians. They were the original proprie. tors of the soil. From them we derived it, and from them we derived many of the blessings which we now enjoy. They have already been deprived of their original independence. Why should we pursue them, and drag them down to the level of slaves? It appeared to him that the Indians should enjoy the right of suffrage, and that they should not be classed with Africans. He hoped the amend ment of Mr. Gilbert, would remain without further alteration.

Mr. McCARVER would vote for striking out the clause allowing Indians who paid taxes the right to vote. He believed the privilege would be greatly abused. Many men who wished to carry an election, would pay the taxes of the ranche, and induce the Indians to vote as he directed. He was in favor of giving this class of people all the protection of our laws, but not the right of suffrage. As a general thing, the Indian is illiterate, and incompetent to judge of the questions presented in an election. If he pays taxes, he has an equivalent for it-the protection of the law. By giving him the right to vote, he would in nine cases out of ten, be placed in the power of crafty and designing men.

The question was then taken on the motion to strike out the words "not taxed," and decided in the affirmative-ayes, 25; noes, 15.

Mr. TEFFT said he could not in justice to his own feelings, allow the motion to pass, without expressing, with the gentleman from Monterey, (Mr. Dent) the deep sympathy which he felt for this unhappy race. It might be a prejudice that had grown with his growth, and strengthened with his strength; but from his earliest youth, he had felt something like a reverence for the Indian. He had ever admired their heroic deeds in defence of their aboriginal homes, their stoicism, their wild eloquence and uncompromising pride. He was much pleased, when a resident of Wisconsin, to see incorporated in the Constitution of that State, a provision allowing Indians the privilege of voting. He hoped this question would be considered calmly and dispassionately in all its bearings, and that gentlemen would not, by acting hastily, exclude all Indians, absolutely and entirely, from the right of suffrage. Were gentlemen aware, that, because a man is two-thirds Indian, he is not an Indian? Had they considered well the feeling that would go abroad among the native population of California, if injustice was done to this class of people? Has not injustice enough already been visited upon the Indian race? They have been driven back from the haunts of civilization into the wilderness

driven from one extremity of the land to the other; shall they now be driven into the waves of the Pacific? Shall we deprive them of the advantages of civilization? Shall we prohibit them from becoming civilized? Surely the prejudice against color does not extend so far! He did not desire that the Tulas, and other savage tribes should vote, but it is not difficult to draw a line of distinction between these wild Indians, and those who are accustomed to habits of civilization. He considered that this native population was better entitled to the right of suffrage than he was, or a thousand others who came here but yesterday.

Mr. MOORE preferred retaining the words "all free white male citizens.” He could not think that any white man would object to this clause.

Mr. SHANNON moved further to amend the amendment of Mr. Gilbert, by striking out all after the word following, and inserting "Indians not taxed, Africans, and descendants of Africans excepted. His amendment was the same as that of Mr. Botts, but he proposed inserting it in a different place.

Mr. McCARVER said the gentleman was out of order. The House could not vote upon the same question twice. The House by its vote has already refused to incorporate these words in the section.

The question of order giving rise to discussion,

Mr. GILBERT said he thought that, in offering the amendment this morning, he had sufficiently explained the grounds upon which he did so. To illustrate his design more clearly, he would read again the 9th article of the treaty, [see Art. 9.] He contended that under this article, native Californians or Mexicans now established in California, have not yet been properly admitted into the United States by act of Congress. They are, no doubt, American citizens, entitled to all the rights and privileges of any other American citizens here, but he moved the amendment to prevent any difficulty that might arise at any future period under this article of the treaty. He particularly stated at the time, that he did not wish to draw any invidious distinctions as to who should be permitted to vote, whether Indians, Africans, or their descendants. He was quite willing to leave that to the Convention. But he contended that it was absolutely necessary to insert either the amendment which he proposed or something like it. He considered that "every white male citizen of the United States," was not sufficiently explicit, and did not cover the ground.

Mr. SHERWOOD disagreed with his friend from San Francisco (Mr. Gilbert) in regard to the construction which he put upon the right of citizenship. A person may be a citizen of the United States, formerly a citizen of Mexico, but not necessarily a citizen of the new State of California, so far as regards the right of voting. We are now attempting to establish the qualifications of voters, and we say that a great many good citizens of the United States shall not be voters. Have we not the same right to say that those who were previously citizens of Mexico, but who under the treaty became citizens of the United States, shall not vote? If we can debar those who have been previously citizens of the United Sates from this privilege, surely we can debar those who have been previously citizens of Mexico from the same privilege. We do it in virtue of the right always exercised by the States, to determine the qualifications of their voters. We say unless a man be a resident so many months, he shall not be a voter. We may make it a property qualification. These restrictions would of course debar a great many citizens of the United States from the elective franchise. Gentlemen will not un. dertake to say, that because a person was a citizen of Mexico previous to the treaty, and under the treaty comes into the United States and becomes a citizen thereof, he has a right to vote, no matter what may be the restrictions imposed upon other citizens of the State, or of the United States? In forming a new State, it is clear that we have a right to determine the qualifications of our voters; but we haye no right to deprive any man of the common rights of citizenship. We cannot deprive the Indian, or even the free negro of the right to hold proper

ty. It is a right that appertains to all freemen. But we can say who shall and who shall not elect the officers of the government. We have a right to govern the State. Will gentlemen undertake to say that the wild Indians, who never heard of a Government or a Legislature, and who might possibly have been by the laws of Mexico, entitled to vote, should be entitled to privileges under our laws, superior to those enjoyed by the citizens of our own Union ?—that because they are admitted under a treaty of peace, they shall not be subject to restrictions in regard to the elective franchise which we impose upon ourselves? Or that we have not the right to impose such additional restrictions upon them as we think proper? He hoped gentlemen would see how preposterous the idea was without further discussion of the question.

He objected to the amendment: "Indians, Africans, and the descendants of Africans, excepted." What is meant by the descendant of an Indian, or the descendant of a negro? Did the gentleman who offered the proposition mean to say that a man who has the least taint of Indian or negro blood shall not vote? He had never heard such a doctrine in the States. The word descendant means a person who descends in regular line. He may be of mixed blood or full blood. There is nothing specific in the term "descendant." He (Mr. Sherwood) did not believe the Committee could adopt any better form than the words "white male citizen." If the word "descendant” is more definite than "white," he would like to know in what particular. We do not debar the Spanish, or the French, or the Italians from voting by the use of this word. They are.darker than the AngloSaxon race, but they are white men. He was in favor of the distinct expression, every white male citizen," as used in the thirty different Constitutions of the Union.

66

Mr. SEMPLE was of opinion that every Constitution in the States makes some provision of this kind. He had a very distinct recollection of the words, " negroes, mulattoes, and Indians excepted," in the Constitution of Kentucky." They had Indians there as well as here, and they were invariably considered free. They never had been made slaves of, nor had they ever been allowed the privilege of voting. He would suggest the same principle here. He was opposed to taxing them without giving them all the rights enjoyed by others. It is one of the principles laid down in the Declaration of Independence, that taxation and representation shall go together. If, then, we levy a tax on the Indian, either a capitation tax or a tax on his property, he should by all means be represented. He (Mr. Semple) believed that, although we might exclude the native Indian, it was beyond the reach of this Convention to exclude those who might be descended from the Indian race. He saw no better way of settling the difficulty than by adopting the word "white" before male citizen, which is sufficiently explained in the courts of the United States.

Mr. GILBERT remarked that in so far as the word "descendant" was concerned, to which the gentleman from Sacramento (Mr. Sherwood) objected, he wished it understood that it was not a portion of his amendment; and he agreed with that gentleman that if we strike out the whole of this section as it stands, it is not necessary to insert in the proposed section the words of the gentleman from Sacramento (Mr. Shannon.) It would certainly be of no importance, if this section was to stand "every white male citizen of the United States," to insert Indians, Africans, and the descendants of Africans excepted." Those words were altogether unnecessary. His (Mr. Gilbert's) intention, in proposing an amendment to the clause, was to prevent any question arising hereafter, from the wording of the treaty of peace, by which Mexican citizens might be debarred the pri vilege of voting. He objected to the words "white male citizen" on the ground that they were not sufficiently explicit. They might be very well understood in our courts, but it was necessary that every citizen should understand the provisions of this Constitution, without going into court to have them explained. It

was only by adopting his amendment that the words proposed by Mr. Shannon became important. Without it, it would be nonsense to adopt them. If his (Mr. Gilbert's) amendment was not adopted, the words of the report ought to stand. Mr. HOPPE moved to strike out the words "not taxed" from the proposed amend

ment.

The CHAIR stated that the question having already been taken and decided on that portion of the amendment, it could not be brought up again. It was, therefore, out of order, and not before the House.

Mr. SHANNON insisted upon his right to have the question taken on the amendment as a whole.

The CHAIR decided that the words "not taxed" were out of order.

The question was then taken on Mr. Shannon's amendment, modified in accor dance with the decision of the Chair, and decided in the negative.

The question being on the amendment offered by Mr. Gilbert,

Mr. LARKIN proposed to insert "Indians and Africans, and the descendants of Africans to the fourth generation excepted."

Mr. BOTTS cordially approved of the proposition. It would make certain that which would probably be uncertain. Even in our courts there is some uncertainty on this subject. He thought it well that this assembly should determine the meaning of any doubtful term which it might use.

Mr. SHERWOOD was of opinion that no other construction could be placed upon the word white than this: if an Indian is more than half Indian, he is an Indian ; if he is more than half white, he is white. With respect to Africans, he believ ed that all after the fourth generation are considered white in most of the States. Mr. MOORE asked who was to determine, on the day of election, the various grades of color?

The question recurring on Mr. Gilbert's amendment, as amended, it was adopted—ayes 20, noes 20-the Chairman giving the casting vote in the affirmative. The question then being on the filling up of the blanks,

Mr. NORTON moved to insert "six" in the first blank.

Mr. SEMPLE moved the word "twelve." He believed the rule was to put the question first on the highest number.

Mr. CROSBY suggested that the next election ought to be embraced in this section.

Mr. ELLIS remarked that there would be very few to vote if twelve months was the time fixed upon.

Mr. SEMPLE said it was well known to almost every member of this Convention that there are a vast number of persons who come to California for no other object than to remain one working season and dig gold. They are in the mines, and expect to remain but a single season. About the 1st of November your annual election comes on. These persons, who have only been in the country three or four months previous to that date, who are on the very eve of leaving California, are qualified voters. Is this just towards the permanent population of California? Is it politic to permit persons to vote who come here with the avowed intention of digging gold to carry it away and spend their wealth elsewhere? What interest have they in the welfare of the State? All persons who are residents of California, no matter when they arrived, at the time of the reception of the Constitution, are, of course, and should be, entitled to vote. The provision, therefore, making twelve months residence necessary, would not affect a single person who was here previous to the adoption of the Constitution. It would only operate upon those who come into the country after the adoption of the Constitution, and be. come a permanent portion of the population. It seemed to him that twelve months was short enough a period to entitle them to the privilege of voting. If his own brother was to come here, he would be unwilling to see him participate in the elections any sooner. It is a necessary protection to the ballot-box that no man shall vote unless he is willing to remain in the country twelve months.