« PrejšnjaNaprej »
amount of the precious metals, there must be a place of deposit. The gentleman is also aware that if he desires to send a hundred thousand dollars to Louisiana, he must either buy a bill of exchange or get a certificate of deposit, and if he gets that he will be very apt to select the association which will have the most credit to deposit his money with and draw his certificate from. We say here that the Legislature may create associations for the deposit of gold and silver. This is not a special act. It is for every man who has money. It is not confined to the particular favorites of the Legislature. It is a general law. I have no horror for general laws of that description. What is the law now here in regard to deposits? An individual deposits with me a thousand dollars. I have no iron safe. My store burns up, and the money with it. I charge him nothing for receiving his money on deposit. He cannot, according to the common law, collect it from me, because I have received no consideration. Now, sir, as our commerce ex. tends, as our population increases, as the gold is dug from the earth in augmenting quantities, as the wealth of the country is enhanced from every source, I am in favor of giving to the Legislature the power to create a general law, by which any association of men can receive money on deposit, and give a certificate there. for. I am not afraid of such bank bills. The gentleman will not fear such bank bills, any more than a bill of exchange on Louisiana or New York. It is a settled principle that the people will use the currency they like best. You cannot force a currency upon them. If a man has money which he does not want to carry about him, he will deposit it in a place of security, and get a paper for it which he he can carry conveniently. I see none of those terrible phantasies which disturb the mind of the gentlemen from San Joaquin and San Francisco. The raw-head and bloody bones does not appear before me, because the soul and body are not here. We have given no banking power to the Legislature. We have said expressly that they never shall charter a bank ; they never shall allow any association with corporate powers to issue bank bills. Would the gentleman prevent an individual or an association from issuing a certificate of deposit ?. If he would prevent an association from issuing a certificate founded upon a thousand dollars put into its vaults, would he not as soon refuse his colleague from San Francisco, (Mr. Hobson,) the right to issue a certificate of deposit for a thousand dollars offered by an individual to be placed in his safe, even if the money was offered for nothing?' I can see no distinction. The Legislature has power by this article to create—not banks to swindle the community, or to cheat those who deposit money in their vaults, or buy stock-but those necessary associations for the deposit of gold and silver, without which, the community of this country, where the amount of the precious metals is so large, would be subject to serious inconvenience. They must deposit their money somewhere, and it is better that they should have some known and reliable public association to deposit with, than irresponsible private establishments, from which they could obtain no indemnification in case of loss. There is nothing in this provision to touch the fears of the most timid; and I cannot perceive why the gentleman should see the fearful vis. ions which he pictures to us, when he knows distinctly, that the Committee are opposed to banks in this country. He says the Committee have carefully kept out of view the word bank—that it never once appears in the articles reported— as if they desired banks under a specious covering. The gentleman has no authority for such an imputation. There has been no concealment on the part of the Committee, but a straightforward desire to get up a Constitution which the people would approve—to deprive the Legislature of all power to create banking institutions. Suppose we refuse the Legislature the power to regulate the depost. ing of gold and silver. In five years from now, the population of California may be a million ; the commerce fifty millions. Would we not, with this commerce, and this population, present a strange spectacle to the world? No legalized de. positories for our money ; no power
in the Legislature to create them ; a positive denial of the right to issue paper as medium of currency, which is right and pro
per. but also a denial of the right of the people to deposit their capital, which is gold and silver, and obtain for the legitimate purposes of business, certificates of deposit or bills of exchange. In conclusion, Mr. President, if we strike out this provision, we deny to the Legislature a power which the people desire, which the currency of the country renders necessary, which can be attended by no possible danger, and which must have a beneficial influence in augmenting the wealth of the community, and promoting the facilities of commerce.
After further discussion on the order of amendments, Mr. Gwin, in order to prevent further difficulty on the subject, withdrew his amendment.
Mr. LIPPITT then moved to amend the 31st section by striking out the words, “and in cases where, in the judgment of the Legislature, the objects of the corporation cannot be attained under general laws."
Mr. Price. Before this question is taken, I wish to say a few words in reply to the gentleman from Sacramento, (Mr. Sherwood,) whose views and mine are dia. metrically opposed in relation to the system proposed in the 34th section of granting general privileges to associations to receive deposits of gold and silver. Now, sir, we have the practical operation of affairs in California for the last nine months as a guide. The commercial operations of this country are already very exten. sive, and the people have not asked for any such privileges yet. They find that they can conduct their affairs very well without associations of this kind. I am opposed to granting any privileges here which are not required by the communi. ty, and which can only have the effect of consolidating capital.
Mr. NORTON. I call the gentleman lo order, He is not speaking to the amend. ment.
Mr. Price. I believe I am entirely in order, sir. I take the broad ground that the country does not require any general law, as proposed by the 34th section. have tried the experiment of depositing without the aid of legislative action, in San Francisco, to the amount of several millions of dollars, and I am not aware that there has been any loss or any inconvenience resulting from the manner in which these deposits are made. The gentleman (Mr. Sherwood) tells us of the necessity of legalized associations to receive deposits and carry on the exchanges of this country. We are clearly at issue on this point, for so far as my observation of affairs in this country extends, (and I have had some experience in monetary transactions here,) I believe it to be not only needless to create establishments of this kind, but I believe they would have a most pernicious effect upon the business interests of the community. In regard to exchanges, I do not see what facilities these institutions would afford to the people.
Mr. Sherwood. Does the gentleman mean to say that domestic exchanges are not needed here at all.
Mr. Price. I say this provision will not facilitate them. I say that exchanges of every kind, domestic and foreign, can be conducted by individuals; and that no grant should be given to corporations to do this business for individuals. We have already places of deposit in San Francisco; there are individuals there who have constructed safe places of deposit for gold dust or coin, as may be brought to them. Now, sir, it is proposed here to give the Legislature power to pass a gene. ral law by which persons may associate, under legislative sanction, to compete with these individuals who have already done this business without any enactments of this kind. I have seen enough to satisfy me that all such privileges have a pernicious tendency, and would be more particularly injurious in California than any other part of the world, because they are less required and less known. Places of deposit, sir, will keep pace with the requirements of the country, and I trust that no section which has the shadow of a banking institution in it, or which can bear the shadow of a construction under which corporations of this character can grow up, will be adopted by this House.
Mr. HALLECK. I was with the majority of the Committee who reported this ar. ticle. On a careful examination of the subject, I have found reasons why I think some verbal amendment, such as that suggested by the gentleman from San Francisco, (Mr. Lippitt) ought to prevail. I do not think that particular clause, which he proposes striking out, will be necessary in California.' I shall therefore vote for the amendment.
On motion of Mr. SHANNON, the Committee then rose, reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again.
On motion, the Convention then adjourned to 12 o'clock, to-morrow.
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 1849. In Convention. Prayer by the Rev. Antonio Ramirez. Journal of yesterday read, amended, and approved.
Mr. Hill announced the arrival of his colleague from San Diego, Miguel de la Pedronena, and moved that he be qualified and authorized to take his seat. Where. upon, Mr. Pedronena was duly sworn and admitted to his seat.
Mr. Hill then moved that Mr. Wm. H. Richardson who was one of the five delegates elected in the District of San Diego, be also sworn, and allowed to take his seat.
Mr. Borts said that the gentleman could not take his seat unless the existing resolution fixing the representation of the several districts was rescinded.
Mr. GILBERT said that the resolution made the apportionment of two members from San Diego.
Mr. Tefft was willing to admit as many members from San Diego as that district was justly entitled to; but he could not see how any, in addition to the two already admitted, could be admitted under the rules of the House.
Mr. SHANNON regarded the vote of the House upon that resolution as perfectly null and void ; that they went beyond any right that they possessed, in declaring that such a district should have so many and no more members. He believed he expressed his opinion at the time of its adoption as strongly as he could, and he had seen no cause since to change that opinion. The bad effects of such a course were now evident. The House was in difficulty. The people of San Diego, under the proclamation of General Riley, had elected five delegates, and this Con. vention had said they should have but two delegates. The people of San Joaquin had elected ten delegates ; the Convention said they were entitled to fifteen. Hé thought the gentleman from San Diego (Mr. Richardson) had a perfect right to come upon this floor, and be admitted as a member.
Mr. Gwin said that this was to be found in a portion of the proceedings of the House, under which they got into a difficulty about a quorum.
He recollected that he had moved a reconsideration of the vote on the resolution, and it was his understanding that the reconsideration was carried.
Mr. GILBERT explained the circumstances of the vote of the Convention on that subject. The apportionment finally agreed upon by resolution allowed to San Diego only two members ; consequently no other gentlemen could be admitted, unless that resolution was rescinded.
Mr. Gwin said that if the journal proved such to be the case, he would move that the resolution be rescinded, and that the gentleman be admitted.
Mr. TEFFT did not wish the House to proceed without a proper understanding of this matter. He was in favor of admitting the gentleman, and would vote for the proposition of the gentleman from San Francisco, (Mr. Gwin.) But he de. nied that the House should not contradict itself by its own action.
The Secretary then read from the journal the order of the House fixing the re. presentation from San Diego at two members.
Mr. Gwin moved that this order be so amended as to admit the member now claiming his seat, (Mr. Richardson.)
The Chair inquiried if there were not other members from other districts claiming seats.
Mr. Hill stated that there were none to his knowledge, except from San Diego.
Mr. DIMMICK said that if this representation was to be increased, he would state, as the Chair had made the inquiry, that there were other members from San Jose who would also claim their seats.
Mr. Tefft did not see any better way of settling the difficulty than to take the claims of the gentleman who appeared to take his seat, and settle the case at once, on its own merits. Mr. SHANNON moved a suspension of the rules of the House for the purpose
of reconsidering the order allowing the District of San Diego but two members.
The Chair stated that it would require a vote of two-thirds to suspend the rule. Mr. Gwin offered the following resolution : Resolved, That the action of the Convention apportioning delegates to the several districts, be so far rescinded as to admit William Richardson, a delegate elect from the District of San Diego, to his seat as such.
Mr. LIPPITT remarked that a good deal was said the other day by his friend from Monterey (Mr. Botts) about the elective franchise. He thought that gen. tleman would not dispute that, whenever a citizen is elected by the people to any body whatever, that the fact of his election of itself proves that he has acquired a franchise of which he cannot legally be deprived. Any member who has been elected by his fellow.citizens, and who has received his certificate of election, possesses a franchise in the rights acquired under that election. It is therefore perfectly competent for the House to entertain a motion that the person elected, be allowed to take his seat. The House has no right to refuse him admission or deprive him of his franchise, which they would do, if they denied him his seat, whatever may have been the previous action on the subject. He considered that action of the House null and void, and would therefore vote in favor of whatever method was proposed, in order to meet the difficulty, and accomplish the object he had in view.
Mr. Borts did not intend to enter into any argument on this subject. He thought that the oldest politician might learn something new in regard to parliamentary rules in this body. He called the attention of the Convention to the proclamation of the Governor, fixing the ratio of representation in the first place. Until this House reconsidered and annulled the resolution which it had adopted, it was utterly impossible to admit any delegate from San Diego, other than the two admitted under its existing decision. The proclamation left this mat. ter to the decision of the House. He did not consider that either the pro. clamation or the Convention could deprive any man of a franchise given to him by the people, but the people having in the first place adopted the proclamation, it became their act, and the House having formed certain rules in accordance with the powers conferred upon it, could not adopt an order, and then proceed to violate that order. It would be necessary to rescind it before any additional members were admitted from the District of San Diego.
Mr. Gwin, to prevent further debate, moved the previous question ; but at the request of Mr. McCarver, he withdrew it.
Mr. McCARVER said that the House must suspend its rules before it proceeded in this matter; and to suspend the rules, would require one day's notice.
Mr. SHANNON moved a suspension of the rules so as to admit a motion to recon. sider the vote fixing the apportionment of the several districts.
The motion was decided in the affirmative, two-thirds of the members present, voting in favor thereof.
Some discussion as to the order of proceeding here took place, when the Presi. dent decided the question of reconsideration to be first in order.
Mr. SHANNON submitted the following: Resolved, That the House now proceed to reconsider their action on so much of the apportionment of delegates as relates to the District of San Diego.
Mr. SHANNON subsequently modified his resolution so as to embrace a recon. sideration of the entire action of the Convention on the subject of apportionment.
And the question being on the adoption of the resolution, as modified, it was decided in the negative.
Mr. Gwix submitted the following:
Resolved, That William Richardson, a member elect from the District of San Diego, be admitted to his seat.
Mr. CARVER moved an indefinite postponement of the whole subject.
The President decided that all further action was precluded by the refusal of the Convention to reconsider the vote fixing the apportionment of the several districts.
Mr. Hill submitted the following :
Resolved, That a committee of five be appointed by the President, to ascertain and report to this House who are or shall be delegates from San Diego.
And the question being on the adoption of the resolution, it was decided in the affirmative-yeas 19, nays 9.
The President appointed as said committee, Messrs. Tefft, Stearns, Wozen. craft, Jones, and Sherwood.
On motion of Mr. Crosby, the President filled a vacaney on the Committee on Finance, occasioned by the absence of Mr. Price, by the temporary appointment of Mr. Aram.
Mr. Hastings, from the Committee on the Boundary, made the following report, which was received, read, and referred to the committee of the whole :
Mr. President: The committee, to whom was referred the subject of the boundary of the State of California, in accordance with a resolution of this House requiring the appointment of a committee of five to report what, in their opinion, should constitute the boundary of the State of California, have had the same under consideration, and beg leave to report the following.
Your committee are of the opinion that the present boundary of California comprehends a tract of country entirely too extensive for one State, and that there are various other forcible reasons why that boundary should not be adopted by this Convention. The area of the tract of country included within the present boundary is estimated to be four hundred and forty-eight thousand six hundred and ninety-one (448,691) square miles, which is nearly equal to that of all the non-slaveholding States of the Union, and which, deducting the area of Iowa, is greater than that of the residue of the non-slaveholding States.
Your committee are of opinion that a country like this, extending along the coast nearly a thousand miles (1,000) and more than twelve hundred miles into the interior, cannot be conveniently or fairly represented in a State Legislature here, especially as a greater part of the interior is entirely cut off from the country on the coast by the Sierra Nevada, a continuous chain of lofty mountains, which is covered with snow, and is wholly impassable nearly nine months in the year.
Your committee are also of the opinion that the country included within the boundary of this territory as now established, must ultimately be divided and sub-divided into several different States, which divisions and sub-divisions (should the present boundary be adopted) would be very likely to divest the State of California of a valuable portion of her sea coast. Your committee are therefore of the opinion that a boundary should now be fixed upon which will entirely preclude the possibility of such a result in future. Another important reason which has aided very much in producing the conclusion to which your committee have arrived, is predicated upon the fact that there is already a vast settlement in a remote portion this territory, the population of which is variously estimated to be from fifteen to thirty thousand human souls, who are not represented in this Convention, and who, perhaps, do not desire to be represented here.
The religious peculiarities of these people, and the very fact of their having selected that remote and isolated region as a permanent home, would seem to warrant a conclusion that they desire no direct political connection with us, and it is possible, and highly probable, in the opinion of your committee, that measures have been, or are now being taken by these people, for the establishment of a Territorial Government for themselves.
For the above and foregoing reasons, your committee are of the opinion that the following should constitute the boundary of the State of California, viz :
Commencing at the northeast corner of the State at the intersection of the parallel of latitude forty-two degrees north with the parallel of longitude one hundred and sixteen west ; thence south, upon and along that parallel of longitude to the boundary line between the United States and Mexico, established by the treaty of peace ratified by the said Governments at Queretaro, on the 30th day of May, 1848 ; thence west, upon and along the said boundary line, to the Pacific ocean ; thence, in a northerly direction, following the course of the Pacific coast, to the said parallel of forty-two degrees north latitude, extending one marine league into the sea from the southern