las Biddle was arrested for felony, nor did he remember that many of our prisons and penitentiaries were filled with the stockholders and directors of that institution. The gentleman had said that an attempt was made to humbug the Convention; he thought the Convention would not be humbugged.

Mr. ELLIS said his opinion was that the Convention was humbugged, and he would therefore move the previous question.

The motion was sustained by the Conventon.

Mr. GWIN asked if he could offer an amendment if the present one was adopted. The CHAIR decided that it would not be in order.

Mr. GWIN appealed, but after some little discussion withdrew his appeal. The amendment of the Committee of the Whole was then adopted as follows: YEAS.-Messrs. Aram, Botts, Dent, Dimmick, Ellis, Foster, Gilbert, Gwin, Hanks, Hill, Hoppe, Hobson, Halleck, Hollingsworth, Jones, Larkin, Lippitt, Lippincott, Moore, McCarver, Ord, Pedrorena, Price, Reid, Sutter, Snyder, Shannon, Stearns, Tefft, Walker, Wozencraft, President.-32.

NAYS.-Messrs. McDougal, Pico, Vallejo.-3.

The question then recurring on the section, as amended

Mr. GWIN proposed to amend by striking out the section, as amended, and inserting in lieu thereof the following:

The Legislature shall have no power to pass any act granting any charter for banking purposes, and shall prohibit by law any person or persons, association or corporation, from making, issuing, or putting in circulation any bill, check, ticket, certificate, promissory note, or other paper, or the paper of any bank to circulate as money.

The CHAIR decided that no proposition to amend was in order, as the effect of the previous question had not been exhausted, but would continue in full force until the question had been taken on the section, as amended; when, if the section was rejected, it would be competent for any member to move to introduce any new matter. Mr. GWIN appealed, contending that he had given notice of his intention to offer it, previous to the call for the previous question. He then proceeded to argue the appeal.

Mr. SHANNON rose to a point of order, and called the attention of the President to the 18th rule.

The PRESIDENT called Mr. Shannon to order, and said he was acquainted with the rule.

The CHAIR explained its position, and decided that the appeal was debateable. Mr. GWIN called upon Mr. Botts to say whether he had not stated that he would withdraw his amendment to allow him (Mr. Gwin) to offer one; and whether he did not understand the Chair to decide that he could offer it after Mr. Bott's resolution had been acted upon.

Mr. Borrs said that he did so understand the decision of the Chair.

The CHAIR stated that when he gave that decision the previous question had not been demanded; but that since it had been called, Mr. Gwin's amendment was not in order.

Mr. GWIN then withdrew his appeal, but again renewed it.

Mr. SHERWOOD gave notice that if the motion for reconsideration prevailed he should move as a substitute for the section, the following:

The Legislature shall have no power to pass any act granting any charter for banking purposes. The PRESIDENT explained that his statement to Mr. Gwin was made before the previous question had been moved and sustained, which act of the Convention had entirely changed the aspect of the proceedings.

The yeas and nays being ordered on the appeal, the decision of the Chair was sustained, by yeas and nays, as follows:

YEAS.-Messrs. Aram, Covarrubias, Dent, Dimmick, Dominguez, Ellis, Hanks, Halleck, Hastings, Larkin, Lippincott, McDougal, Norton, Pedrorena, Pico, Reid, Sutter, Snyder, Sherwood, Shannon, Stearns, Sansevaine, Tefft, Walker, Wozencraft.-25.

NAYS.-Messrs. Botts, Brown, Foster, Gilbert, Gwin, Hill, Hoppe, Hollingsworth, Jones, Lippitt, Moore, McCarver, Ord.-13.

The question recurring on the adoption of the section, as amended by the Committee of the Whole, it was, by yeas and nays, decided in the affirmative, as follows: YEAS. Messrs. Aram, Brown, Dent, Dominguez, Foster, Gwin, Hanks, Hoppe, Hobson, Halleck, Hollingsworth, Jones, Lippincott, Moore, McCarver, McDougal, Ord, Pedrorena, Price, Reid, Sutter, Snyder, Shannon, Stearns, Sansevaine, Tefft, Walker, President.-28.

NAYS.-Messrs. Botts, Covarrubias, Crosby, Dimmick, Ellis, Gilbert, Hill, Hastings, Larkin, Lippitt, Norton, Pico, Sherwood, Wozencraft.-14.

Mr. GWIN moved a reconsideration of the vote just taken, and gave notice that if reconsidered he would offer, as a substitute for the section, the amendment which he had before proposed.

Mr. BoTTs moved an adjournment, but the question was decided in the negative. The question being taken on the motion to reconsider, it was, by yeas and nays, decided in the negative, as follows:

YEAS. Messrs. Botts, Covarrubias, Dimmick, Ellis, Gilbert, Gwin, Hill, Jones, Larkin, Lippitt, Moore, McCarver, Norton, Ord, Price, Pico, Sherwood, Wozencraft.-18.

NAYS.-Messrs. Aram, Brown, Crosby, Dent, Dominguez, Foster, Hanks, Hoppe, Hobson, Halleck, Hastings, Hollingsworth, Lippincott, McDougal, Pedrorena, Reid, Sutter, Snyder, Shannon, Stearns, Sansevaine, Tefft, Walker, President.-24.

The amendments of the Committee of the Whole to the 35th and 36th sections, were concurred in; and those sections were adopted as amended.

The 37th and 38th sections of the report of the Committee on the Constitution were adopted.

The 39th section, reported by the Committee of the Whole, being under consideration

Mr. NORTON moved to strike out of the section the following words: "effectually prohibit free persons of color from immigrating to and settling in this State, and to." He contended that this clause was contrary to the provisions of the Constitution. He would read article 4, section 2, of the Constitution of the United States. (Section read.) He would next read the definition of the word "citizen," from Walker's Dictionary. (Definition read.) He would then read the definition of the word "inhabitant." (Definition read.) Under these definitions, all free persons of color were citizens of the place where they dwelt. This was not the first time the question of free negroes had arisen in the formation of a Constitution. It was the same question which had prevented the admission of Missouri into the Union. They had a similar section in the Constitution, and when Congress admitted her, it was with the express condition that she should strike out this clause. The Legislature ultimately agreed to do so; and after two years delay, she was admitted into the Union. He did not wish that any bar to the speedy admission of California into the Union should exist, and therefore moved the amendment.

Mr. JONES opposed the amendment of Mr. Norton as inoperative, also. The section as it would stand if amended, would prohibit owners of slaves from bring. ing them into the country to set them free. This was already provided for by the section which prohibited involuntary servitude forever. The fear was not that owners of slaves would bring them here to manumit them, but that they would do this in the States and bring them here under bonds of servitude. He should vote for the section as it stood.

Mr. McCARVER moved to amend the amendment of Mr. Norton by striking out the last clause of the same, from the words "as will," to the words" and to," and insert the following:

The Legislature shall, at its first session, pass such laws as will effectually prohibit free persons of color from immigrating to and settling in this State, except such as have been previous to immigration hither, entitled to the right of citizenship in any one of the States of the United States, and to effectually prevent the owners of slaves from bringing them in to this State for the purpose of setting them free.

He contended that this overcame the difficulties which precluded the admission of Missouri into the Union.

Mr. NORTON objected to it as inoperative.

On motion of Mr. SHERWOhe Convention adjourned.

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 3, 1849.

In Convention. Prayer by the Rev. Mr. Willey. Journal of yesterday read, amended, and approved.

Mr. BOTTS offered a resolution to adjourn sine die at ten o'clock, to-morrow morning. He would mention, among other reasons, that the Spanish gentlemen had to labor under great difficulty, in consequence of having no interpreter. He thought the House could get through all the business before it by that time.

The question was taken, and the resolution was rejected.

On motion of Mr. McCARVER, the House resumed the consideration of the 39th section of 4th article, being the section on the prohibition of free negroes.

Mr. McCARVER then moved the following amendment to the amendment of Mr. Norton :

The Legislature shall, at its first session, pass such laws as will effectually prohibit free persons of color from immigrating to and settling in the State, and to effectually prevent the owners of slaves from bringing them to this State for the purpose of setting them free: Provided, That nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to conflict with the provisions of the first clause of the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution of the United States.

Mr. McCARVER said: On yesterday evening after I had presented the first clause of the article now under consideration, I was shown the proviso which obviated the objections which had been made to the admission of Missouri, and which enabled her to become a State of the Union. I beg leave to read you the origi nal article as proposed in the Constitution of Missouri, with the proviso which was subsequently attached to it, (see Constitution of Missouri,) which is almost identically the same words contained in the prohibition here.

It has been contended by my friend here, (Mr. Norton,) that negroes are citi. zens; that a resident is a citizen, and consequently is entitled to all the rights and privileges here enjoyed by citizens of the States generally. Now, we all know how this matter stands there; we are well aware that negroes are not regarded as citizens. The great principle in regard to the right of citizens of the United States, or of any of the States, to make a provision of this kind for their own protection, has been settled by the action of many of the States themselves; and the question as to whether negroes are citizens has been fully determined by the decisions of the Courts of the United States. I hold, sir, that we possess an undeniable right to protect ourselves against this class of population. If they are permitted to come here, they will be a burden to us, and a drain from our treasury, which every citizen of the State will feel in the increased taxation necessary to provide the means of keeping them in order. Now, as to the amendment which the gentleman (Mr. Norton) has offered to the report of the Committee, I wish to show the utter impracticability of it to carry out the object that the friends of this measure have in view. It provides against the introduction of negroes here for the purpose of setting them free; but where are the provisions prohibiting them from being set free by the States and brought here free; it allows men who have slaves in the States to set them at liberty on condition of working for so many years in the mines, and perhaps the negro does not know he is free until he is on his way here. All the evils that we wish to avoid will be left open, if we adopt the amendment of the gentleman from San Francisco; but this proposition which I offer embodies all the principles which caused Missouri to be admitted as a State of the Union. If the gentleman's proposition pass, I shall most unquestionably feel myself bound to place this matter directly before the people, so that they may place it in the Constitution. I feel this to be a solemn duty imposed upon me by the instructions of my constituents. I believe it the most popular measure that can go before the people, and if we cannot pass it here, I wish it to go before them. I ask the yeas and nays upon that subject. I believe it is a provision that is absolutely necessary to the success of this Constitution. It is not proper to leave it to the Legislature, which may vaccilate upon the subject. We want it

to go to Congress in the Constitution; they will carefully watch its provisions, and if we here make it the duty of the Legislature to prohibit the emigration of free negroes, we stop the evil because the prohibition is seen upon the face of the Constitution.

Mr. SEMPLE. I merely wish to speak of a few facts in relation to the action of the older States of the Union on the subject of the admission of persons from other States. I was living in Alabama some years ago when a law was passed by the Legislature requiring that all the free negroes who were not residents in the State for a certain number of years antecedent to the law, should have a certain time to leave the State, and in the event of their not leaving by that time, they were liable to be seized upon by any person and sold as slaves. This has been the practice of a number of other States; and although it created in 1820, in Missouri, some difficulty, yet I am decidedly of opinion that since that time it has become universally conceded, that the States have a right to protect themselves from such an evil as that class of population. If, by an act of Congress, we are prohibited from protecting ourselves against free negroes, we will soon be completely over. run by them. Suppose an act was passed in Maryland turning all her negroes free, and setting them upon the shores of Massachusetts, do you suppose the peo. ple of Massachusetts would pay their expenses and sustain them. By no means, sir; it would be most unreasonable; the people could not sustain such a popula tion. Massachusetts would have a right to protect herself against such an evil; and it is a right possessed by every State in the Union. The right is general, and the practice has been so frequent that it seems beyond all doubt. One other remark in relation to the effect that it would have in California. I am in favor of introducing this in its most stringent terms, and my reason is this, that I believe our union with the United States would be worse than useless; that it would be a curse to us, instead of a blessing, if we are to admit every class of people, and have no right to protect ourselves by keeping out such as are inimical to our interests. If we are to be restricted in this right, or any rights that naturally belong to us, then Congress might just as well say that those negroes shall come to our ballot boxes. It would be quite as constitutional. The other States, either in their individual or confederate capacity, have no rights over the local affairs of this State. For myself, I would prefer being kept out of the Union to all eternity, rather than acknowledge such a power on the part of Congress, or admit these herds of free negroes. 'I am as anxious to become one of the bright stars of the glorious Union as any gentleman upon this floor, or in California, or in the United States, but if we are to come in with a curse upon us, from which we can never be redeemed, from which the States of the Union have never been able to redeem themselves, and from which they can never redeem us, I would prefer remaining as we are. Aye, sir, and I would take my rifle and defend that right as freely as I did the flag of the United States when we achieved the right to this Territory.

Mr. JONES. I had supposed that this question was fully understood and argued; and I certainly should not in my present state of health trouble the House with any remarks, were it not that I stand upon this floor as a representative of a community of California which has a right to be heard upon this question-a part of California that is determined to carry this provision into effect. It is a question of im mense importance to the mining districts of California; it is those districts that are threatened. It is not to the South, but it is to these mining districts where the money is to be made that these persons will go. There they will enter into competition with and degrade the white labor of the miners; it is they who desire to speak on this floor. It is useless to say that this question has not been discussed in those districts; I, who canvassed my own district, say that it was there discussed, and in all that district I saw but one solitary individual who was nót anxious and determined to carry out such a measure, so far as his own vote was concerned. Then, as one of the representatives of the districts most prominently interested, I claim that they shall have the right to vote upon this question, either

in the Constitution or as a separate article. It is a question whose importance seems to be but little appreciated by gentlemen from other districts. I know that even in the district of San Francisco, perhaps every vote, if it were put in the Constitution, would be cast against it. Every district is governed by its separate interests. I acknowledge that it is to the interest of gentlemen from San Fran cisco that they should have their body servants at the lowest possible price. But it is a question of vital importance to the people of the mining districts, not merely affecting their comfort and convenience, but involving the very foundations of their prosperity. They also have a right to have their interests consulted upon this floor. The question whether it would be politic to introduce this population within our borders and deluge this State with them, was most amply debated in Com. mittee of the Whole; and I shall merely recall, as briefly as possible, a few of the arguments there adduced.

The peculiar position of this country, the vast advantage which labor has here over capital, will bring laborers from all parts of the world; and we know that in all parts of the United States there are these free negroes, oppressed, degraded, vilified at home, with no rights, no privileges-despised by society; they will see the advantage that they would have in this country; they will muster their little all and come out here, where they can gain ten or twenty times what they can at home. In the State of New York there are thousands of them and in all the States of the Union. They will be rushing where labor is profitable. But this is not the greatest danger. The danger is, that the citizens of the Southern States, whose slaves are gaining nothing, will emancipate them under certain contracts of servitude here for one year or more. Slaves are worth from three to four hundred dollars in Mississippi; it would be a very good speculation to bring them here to serve either in the nines, or for a certain time as servants. We know that such is the intention, and that it has been made manifest to members of this House by private letters received from the States. Why should we not have the liberty of guarding against this evil? Sir, in the mining districts of this country we want no such competition. The labor of the white man brought into competition with the labor of the negro is always degraded. There is now a respectable and intelligent class of population in the mines; men of talent and education; men digging there in the pit with the spade and pick, who would be amply competent to sit in these halls. Do you think they would dig with the African? No, sir, they would leave this country first.

There is one view in relation to the constitutionality of this question which I believe has not been taken. There is nothing in my mind clearer than our constitutional right to put this restriction in our Constitution. There is no provision in the Constitution of the United States prohibiting it. It would be absurd; it cannot be. Every State has the right to determine the qualifications of its own citizens. By the Constitution of the United States, article 4, section 2, it is provided that "the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States."

Now, it is contended by gentlemen on this floor that, because New York, one of the States of the Union, sees fit to invest with the privileges of citizenship a class of citizens who, when that article was introduced into the Constitution of the United States, were not recognized by any of the States, that they are thereby invested with the rights of citizenship in every State in the United States, and that every State is bound to acknowledge them with all the privileges and rights of citizens. That construction would lead to the most absurd of absurdities. Sir, when that article was introduced into the Constitution of the United States, there was not one single State of the Union which endowed the African race with the rights of citizenship. The State of New York was then a slave State, and so was Pennsylvania, and so was New Jersey, and so were nearly all the old thirteen colonies. In no one of them was the negro entitled to the privileges of citizenship. But if that construction be true, it would lead to another absurdity. Sup.