Mr. SHANNON. The remarks of the gentleman from Monterey, (Mr. Ord,) although I do not concur in the object, have brought my mind to this conclusion: that punishment by fine will bring a very large fund. With all my anxiety, which is as great as that of any gentleman on this floor, for the support of common schools, and my desire to furnish a munificent fund for that purpose, still may it not be inexpedient to limit a fund, which may be very large, to that particular purpose. No person knows how large it may be. I am perfectly willing that it should be exclusively devoted to the support of schools when the necessities of the country require it; but, when no such necessity exists, I think the surplus should be placed at the disposal of the Legislature, to meet the wants of any other department of the Government that may require it. I am in favor of devoting it to educational purposes, when the wants of the community demand it; but, before that necessity exists, the Legislature should not be prohibited from appropriating it to meet such exigencies as may arise from the want of sufficient revenue for the support of the Government.

Mr. BoTTS. The proposition of the gentleman from San Joaquin (Mr. Wozencraft) infringes upon a principle which I have frequently avowed in this Convention. I do conceive, sir, that there is no subject that more appropriately comes within the province of the Legislature than that of public charity. I have uniformly voted against all these directions to the Legislature as to what they shall do with the different subjects that come under the general head of charity or morality. I propose to give the Legislature power to legislate upon them untrammelled, because it better represents the feelings and wishes of the people on these local subjects. It is a body coming fresh from the people, and it is to be supposed that it understands their desires and necessities. It is only upon some great and absorbing subject, such as education, that I will consent to lay down rules for the Legislature. I am not willing to prescribe what it shall do on the subject of roads, asylums, or hospitals. As to the clause under consideration, I think there is reason in the roasting of eggs. I think we have already carried this subject of appropriations far enough. We have made a most munificent appropriation, if the gentleman from Sacramento (Mr. Sherwood) be right in his notions of the mineral wealth of that portion of the country; an appropriation beyond example. There are other expenses of the Government to be provided for. Let us leave some remnant of the income of the State to meet these expenses. Gentlemen here seem to think that no person commits crime but very poor people, who are unable to pay their fines. Crime, sir, is not confined to the poorer classes. I deny the doctrine that persons of wealth commit no offences against the law. They are no more moral than other people. This fund may be very large. I would leave it at the disposition of the Legislature, having already sufficiently restricted that body in regard to the school fund.

The question was then taken on striking out the 4th section, and it was decided in the affirmative by ayes 17, noes 11.

Mr. SEMPLE moved the following, in place of the section just rejected:

SEC. 4. All funds collected from any source, intended for purposes of education, shall be paid into the educational fund, and shall be appropriated throughout the State, according to its number of children, in such manner as may be directed by law. Provided, that no private donation shall be directed from the purpose for which the donor intended such donation.

Mr. GWIN. I hope no such provision will be incorporated in this Constitution. It goes directly in the teeth of the grant made by Congress of those school lands. The whole system of education would be changed. Every thing is to go into this great maelstroom, when we ought to have district school funds. Congress appropriates certain lands in certain townships for the purpose of school funds in these townships. Let the Legislature be restricted, in not imposing upon weak townships for the benefit of rich ones.

Mr. SEMPLE. It does seem to me the gentleman's last remark is very inapplicable to the present question. I propose here to put all the wealth of the rich.

townships into this general fund, so that the poor ones may get a share of it. In regard to the question of constitutionality, my own opinion is that there is no law enacted by Congress which prohibits the State of California from making a general school fund. Suppose your 16th section falls upon a very poor piece of land, and your next falls upon a very valuable section; one gets nothing, the other gets far more than its share; the one is benefited, the other receives no benefit whatever from his grant. The 16th section, in many instances, is worth nothing, whereas the township may be a very productive one, with a considerable number of inhabitants. The children receive no benefit from the grant, because there are no revenues derived from it to support a school. Suppose you place the general fund in one great maelstroom, as the gentleman calls it, there is a general head accountable for his stewardship. You know where to go in order to find what disposition has been made of your school funds; but if you appropriate money in this and that township, there is no accountability.

Mr. GWIN. The gentlemen is disingenuous in his remarks in regard to what I said. He talks about one township that is worthless and the adjoining one rich. He takes the fund arising from a mineral district and gives it to another. Where are the children in this country? In the towns and cities. The gentleman's own district, Sonoma, will probably have little or no school lands, because the lands there are covered by private claims. The whole of his system is wrong. The school fund that we will have here is in that section of the country that is now unsettled. We ought to hold out inducements to people to settle in these unsettled districts. If we get what we are entitled to from Congress, these school sections will amount to millions of acres. I hope the gentleman's proposition will be rejected.

Mr. HALLECK. If the proposed section pass it annuls all the preceding sections of the report. It entirely overthrows the whole system embodied in the report. It would be necessary to refer the subject back to the committee. Moreover, I consider it in direct conflict with the laws of Congress.

Mr. SEMPLE. I beg the House to listen to the preceding section, and see if my proposition is at all inconsistent with it. [Here Mr. Semple compared the two in juxta-position.] It seems to me that there is no contradiction here. The propo sition which I make carries out the object of that provision.

Mr. TEFFT. I shall oppose the proposition of the gentleman from Sonoma, (Mr. Semple.) In the State of Wisconsin this subject has been agitated more than all others. I tell the gentleman, and every member of this House, that it is necessary there should be in each county a county system of schools. I am opposed to placing this immense fund in the hands of any one man. We must have a county system applicable to that county. It is the case in Wisconsin and all the new States. The general Superintendent has the general supervision; but all the funds arising in the county are under the control of the county officers, who are at their own homes, and are interested in the legitimate and proper disposition of these funds.

Mr. HALLECK. I think the gentleman's system is in total violation of the established rules in the Atlantic States. I will not detain the House by any remarks, for I conceive the objections to be perfectly evident.

Mr. SEMPLE. The gentleman from San Luis Obispo (Mr. Tefft) objects because this fund, he says, is to be appropriated by one individual. If he will examine the proposition he will find that the fund is to be appropriated exclusively by the Legislature.

The question was then taken on the proposed section, and it was rejected.
The fifth section was then adopted without debate, as follows:

5. The Legislature shall take measures for the protection, improvement, or other disposition of such lands as have been or may hereafter be granted by the United States, or by any person or persons, to this State, for the use of a University; and the funds accruing from the rents or sale of such lands, or from any other source, for the purpose aforesaid, shall be and remain a permanent

fund, the interest of which shall be applied to the support of said University, with such branches as the public convenience may demand for the promotion of Literature, the Arts and Sciences, as may be authorized by the term of such grant. And it shall be the duty of the Legislature, as soon as may be, to provide effectual means for the improvement and permanent security of the funds of said University.

Mr. SEMPLE offered an additional section, making a donation of certain lands for educational purposes, in the vicinity of the town of Benicia. He observed that, as there appeared to be some objection to introducing names in the Constitution, he would so amend his proposition as to leave out the names of the owners of these lands.

The question being on the adoption of the additional section proposed

Mr. SEMPLE further remarked that the original proprietors of these lands were now present.

Mr. HALLECK begged leave to correct the gentleman. The original proprie. tors were a company of Mexican soldiers. He presumed they were not present

now.

Mr. SEMPLE explained the nature of the donation. He did not ask any appropriation whatever out of the treasury. It was merely a private donation for educational purposes.

Mr. MCDOUGAL remarked that the gentleman from Benicia (Mr. Semple) was a great public benefactor. He had devoted a great deal of time and incurred much expense in building up the town of Benicia, and making a ferry there for the accommodation of the public. It had been a source of great expense to him, and now he asked that the Government of California should bear a part of it.

Mr. Borrs. I do not doubt that the motives of the gentleman (Mr. Semple), are perfectly disinterested; but I think he has mistaken the means of arriving at a good object. It seems to me that the gentleman bad as well make his will at once, bestow these lands, and ask this Convention to act as a court of record.. If the House will observe, the arrangement which he desires to make is already. provided for in the last clause which has been adopted. The gentleman will be one of these donors whom the last clause takes care of. But I rise principally to call attention to a very important point connected with this proposition. It may produce a result which perhaps the gentleman does not intend. The solemn sanction of this House is given to a claim that may be a very doubtful one. I do. not believe this is the object for which these gentlemen come here, and seek.to obtain the sanction of this House; but I am not prepared to say that they have an inalienable and inherent right to these lands. I have not looked into the question. It may be that they have no title at all. I hope the gentleman will reconsider his proposition and take it back.

Mr. SEMPLE. I will take the gentleman's advice, and withdraw the proposi

tion.

On motion the Committee then rose, reported progress, and had leave to sit again.

The House took a recess until half past 3 o'clock P. M.

AFTERNOON SESSION, HALF PAST 3 O'CLOCK, P. M.

The Convention met pursuant to adjournment.

On motion of Mr. SKANNON, (the President not being present,) Mr.. F..J. LIP. PITT took the Chair temporarily.

Mr. WOZENCRAFT introduced the following, and on his motion it was referred to the Committee of the Whole, viz:

Public Charities.-The Legislature shall at an early day provide for the erection of one or more suitable building or buildings, to be designated and used as a public hospital or hospitals, to be lo cated at such place or places as shall the best subserve the good and welfare of suffering humanity; and shall provide for the support and maintenance of the same, out of such funds as are not otherwise appropriated.

On motion of Mr. SHERWOOD, the House then went into Committee of the Whole, Mr. Lippitt in the Chair, on the report of the Committee on the Consti tution.

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE.

Mr. CROSBY moved that the article on the Judiciary be taken up.

Mr. HALLECK was of opinion that the proper course would be to take up the majority report, and then decide the question as to which report should be acted upon; which would be best arrived at by a motion to strike out the first section of the majority report, and insert the first section of the minority report. To take up the minority report first and consider it would be very unfair, and would be doing injustice to the Committee. That minority report had never been submitted to the Committee, and the majority report had received the sanction of all the members except one.

Mr. CROSBY had no objection to taking that course.

Mr. GILBERT rose to a question of order. The motion of the gentleman from Sacramento (Mr. Sherwood) was to go into Committee of the Whole on the report of the Committee on the Constitution-consequently that report must have precedence of all others.

The majority report was then taken up and read, as follows:

The Committee appointed to report "a plan or a part of a plan of a State Constitution,” having had the same under consideration, respectfully further report the following:

ARTICLE V.-Judicial Department.

SEC. 1. There shall be a Supreme Court, having general jurisdiction in law and equity. SEC. 2. This Court shall consist of four judges, each of whon shall be elected at the general election by the qualified electors of the judicial district in which he resides, provided that the Legislature shall, at its first session, elect the judges of the Supreme Court by joint vote of both Houses. These judges shall hold their office for the term of four years. On the organization of the court, the judges shall be classified by lot, so that one shall go out of office every year.

SEC. 3. The State shall be divided into four judicial districts, in each of which circuit courts shall be held at stated periods by one of the judges of the Supreme Court.

SEC. 4. There shall be a Court of Appeals formed of any three of the judges of the Supreme Court; but no judge shall sit in the Court of Appeals in any case upon which he has given a judicial opinion in the Circuit Court. In case of the absence or disability of any of the judges of the Supreme Court from the Court of Appeals, their places shall be supplied in the manner to be pre. scribed by law.

SEC. 5. The Legislature shall have power to increase the number of judges of the Supreme Court, and the number of judicial districts; and whenever it shall deem expedient, it may provide by law for the separation of the Court of Appeals from the Circuit Court, and for the election of the circuit judges by the qualified electors of each judicial district. And when such separation shall be made, the Court of Appeals shall consist of three judges, who shall be elected by the quali fied electors of the whole State. They shall hold their office for the term of six years, and be so classified that one shall go out of office every two years; and when such separation is made, the circuit judges shall also hold their office for the term of six years.

SEC. 6. The Supreme Court shall have the power to issue all writs and processes necessary to do justice to parties, and exercise a supervisory control, under such regulations as may be prescribed by law, over all inferior judicial tribunals, and the judges of the Supreme Court shall be conservators of the peace throughout the State.

SEC. 7. The Legislature shall provide for clerks of the Court of Appeals and Circuit Courts, and shall fix by law their duties and compensations.

SEC. 8. There shall be elected in each of the organized counties of this State one county judge, who shall hold his office for four years. He shall hold the County Court and perform the duties of surrogate or probate judge. The county judge, with two justices of the peace, to be designated according to law, shall hold courts of sessions with such criminal jurisdiction as the Legisla ture shall prescribe, and shall perform such other duties as shall be required by law.

SEC. 9. The County Court shall have jurisdiction in cases arising in justices' courts, and in special cases, as the Legislature may prescribe, but shall have no original civil jurisdiction, except in such special cases.

SEC. 10. In the temporary absence or disability of the county judge, his place in criminal cases shall be supplied by the senior justice of the peace of the county.

SEC. 11. The times and places of holding the terms of the Court of Appeals, and of the general and special terms of the Circuit Court, within the several districts, and of the Courts of Oyer and Terminer, shall be provided for by law.

SEC. 12. No judicial officer, except justices of the peace, shall receive to his own use any fees or perquisites of office.

SEC. 13. The Legislature may authorize the judgment decrees and decisions of any local and inferior court of record of civil jurisdiction, established in a city, to be removed directly into the Court of Appeals.

SEC. 14. The Legislature shall provide for the speedy publication of all statute laws, and of such judicial decisions, as it may deem expedient, and all laws and judicial decisions shall be free for publication by any person.

SEC. 15. Tribunals for conciliation may be established with such powers and duties as may be prescribed by law; but such tribunals shall have no power to render judgment, to be obligatory on the parties, except they voluntarily submit their matters in difference, and agree to abide the judgment, or assent thereto in the presence of such tribunal, in such cases as shall be prescribed by law. SEC. 16. The Legislature shall determine the number of justices of the peace to be elected in each county, city, town, and incorporated village in the State, and fix by law their powers, duties, and responsibilities. It shall also determine in what cases appeals may be made from the Justices' Courts to the County Court.

SEC. 17. The judges of the Supreme and District Courts shall severally, at stated times during their continuance in office, receive for their services a compensation to be paid out of the treasury, which shall not be increased or diminished during the term for which they shall have been elected. The county judges shall also, severally, at stated times, receive for their services a compensation to be paid out of the county treasury of their several counties, which shall not be increased or diminished during the term for which they shall have been elected.

SEC. 18. The supreme and district judges shall be ineligible to any other office during the term for which they shall have been elected.

SEC. 19. The style of process shall be: "The people of the State of California," and all prosecutions shall be conducted in the name and by authority of the same.

All of which is respectfully submitted.

The minority report was then read.

MYRON NORTON, Chairman.

The first section of the report of the Committee being under consideration, Mr. ORD offered a substitute for the whole report, which was read.

The

Mr. ORD said he offered this substitute because he thought the judicial system proposed by the Committee was unsuited to the wants and the condition of the people of California. His first objection was that it was too complicated. There were four tribunals proposed by the Committee: 1st, the Supreme Court; 2d, the Circuit Court; 3d, the County Court; 4th, the Magistrates' Court. He regarded that as a serious objection. Another objection: He thought the system an expensive one; that it would be found, when put in practice, extremely costly. A third objection was, that it would give rise to delays in the administration of justice-delays which he was sure every citizen of California was anxious to avoid. Mr. TEFFT. I think it well to consider the points at issue between the several reports. Let us bring the matter down to a single point, and confine the debate to that issue-the difference between the majority and minority reports. same holds good in regard to the amendment of the gentleman from Monterey, (Mr. Ord.) The Committee had in view to report to this house, if possible, a judicial system, which should be entirely adequate to the present wants of Californiasimple and economical, at the same time possessed of express powers which would enable it, without any change of the Constitution, to meet the prospective wants of the people of California. We hope we have succeeded in presenting to the house such a judicial system. I believe there is an honest difference of opinion in regard to the chief point at issue. In fact, with that exception, the two systems are nearly identical. They only differ in regard to the number of officers and judges. We want a judicial system which is adequate to meet the present wants of California, combining simplicity and economy, and which can be so altered at any time as to meet the future wants of the community. The question is, whether we shall adopt a system which has less officers, fewer judges, and which is to be carried out afterwards when circumstances may require a change, or onewhich has a greater number of officers, will cost more, and cannot be changed.