Изображения страниц

AFTERNOON SESSION, 3 O'CLOCK, P. M. The Convention met pursuant to adjournment.

Mr. Hill, from the Committee on Privileges and Elections, reported progress and asked for further time.

Whereupon, on motion of Mr. Gwin, the convention adjourned to meet again at 8 P. M.

Eight o'cLOCK, P. M.-The Convention met pursuant to adjournment.

Mr. Hill, from the Committee on Privileges and Elections, submitted the fol. lowing report;

Your Committee, appointed by the President to ascertain and report to the Convention "the number of delegates which in their opinion ought to be received from each district, and the names of the persons which they deem entitled to seats according to their recommendations as to the number to be received," would respectfully report to your honorable body, that from the best information to be obtained by your committee, the district of San Diego is entitled to two delegates, Los Angeles, four; Santa Barbara, two; San Luis Obispo, two; Monterey, five; San Jose, five; San Francisco, eight; Sonoma, four; Sacramento, eight; and San Joaquin, eight.

And the following named persons having received the greatest number of votes in the respective districts, are entitled to seats, viz:

San Diego.--Miguel de Pedrorena, Henry Hill.
(Los Angeles. ---S. C. Foster, J. A. Carillo, M. Dominguez, A. Stearns.

Santa Barbara.-P. La Guerra.
San Luis Obispo.--Henry A. Tefit, J. M. Cabarruvias.
Monterey-H. W. Halleck, T. O. Larkin, C. T. Botts, P. Ord, L. S. Dent.
San Jose.—J. Aram, K. H. Dimmick, J. D. Hoppe, A. M. Pico, E. Brown.

San Francisco-E. Gilbert, M. Norton, W. M. Gwin, J. Hobson, W. M. Steuart, W. D. M.
Howard, F. J. Lippitt, A. J. Ellis.
Sonoma–J. Walker, R. Semple, L. W. Boggs, M. G. Vallejo.

Sacramento.-J. R. Snyder, W. S. Sherwood, L. W. Hastings, J. S. Fowler, W. E. Shannon, J. A. Sutter, J. Bidwell, M. M. McCarver.

San Joaquin, J. McH. Hollingsworth, C. L. Peck, S. Haley, B. S. Lippincott, T. L. Vermuile, M. Fallon, B. F. Moore, Walter Chipman.

And your Committee, having no further business before them, most respectfully beg leave to be discharged.

Mr. Gwin moved that the report be recommitted to the committee, with instruc. tions to report in favor of the admission of every member voted for by a respecta. ble constituency, and now present, claiming a seat. He would reduce his motion to a more definite form in writing. According to this report the district of San Joaquin had but three members on this floor. It was well known to the Conven. tion, that the main communications of this country were of a character not to be relied upon ; that San Joaquin was a very remote district; and that the members that were not here, could not get the information contained in the report in time to participate in the deliberations of this body. It was to be borne in mind, that the district of San Joaquin was larger than any other portion of California repre. sented by twenty members on this floor;' that the number of voters was greater. He did not wish to excite sectional prejudices, but when a manifest act of injustice was about to be committed, it was due to the occasion to speak his opinions freely. One of the gentlemen excluded (Mr. Wozencraft) represented a mining district into which a large emigration was pouring through Fort Smith and San Antonio. It was notorious that not less than twenty thousand American citizens were now on the road; and when you send that member back to inform his constituency that he shall not have a seat on this floor, it is proper you should look boldly in the face the consequences. It was not for the native Californians we were making this Constitution; it was for the great American population, comprising four-fifths of the population of the country. In this report that majority has been cut off from a representation in the Convention, A member who had received upwards of eight hundred votes was to be excluded, while there were members on this floor who had received less than one hundred. It was important that a Con. stitution should be sent forth which would meet the approval of the great majority

of the people. If a constitution was submitted to them in which they considered their rights violated, it would be indignantly rejected by their votes. These gen. tlemen had been elected by a large and respectable constituency of American citizens. Were they to he rejected and sent back, after incurring extraordinary expense and subjecting themselves to the greatest inconvenience in coming here? He would wage a war of extermination against such an act of injustice. His only object was to insure a successful issue for the labors of the Convention. He considered that when a man was sent here as a delegate, he was entitled to all the privileges of the body until the question of representation was settled. He therefore moved the adoption of the following order :

On motion, it is ordered by the Convention, that the report of the Committee on Frivileges and Elections be recommitted, with instructions to report in favor of the election as a delegate of this Convention, of any person present who has received one hundred votes for the same, from any district in California where any election has been held, without reference to the day on which the election may have been held.

Mr. Hill explained the motives which had actuated the Committee in arriving at the conclusions contained in the report. He did not believe the Committee with the facts before them could have come to any other conclusion.

Mr. SHANNON gave a statistical synopsis of the number of delegates which he considered each district entitled to, with a view of showing that, on the basis as. sumed by gentlemen from the San Joaquin district, that of Sacramento was entitled to a larger representation than she claimed under the proclamation of Governor Riley.

On motion of Mr. Gwin, those persons excluded from their seats as well as those admitted to seats, by the report, were invited to take seats within the bar, and to participate in the debate.

Messrs. Jones, Wozencraft, and Moore, thereupon entered and addressed the Committee in relation to their claims.

Mr. Jones considered it a poor privilege, to which every prisoner at the bar was entitled, that of defending his rights. He did not come here to subject himself to the discretion of any committee. He came to represent a large and re. spectable constituency, by whom he was elected, and he claimed a seat in this Convention, not as a matter of sympathy, but as a matter of right. His reputation, he trusted was above committees. In the absence of full election returns, he con. tended that the word of a gentleman who was deemed worthy of the confidence reposed in him by his constituents, was sufficient to establish his right to a seat in this Convention-at least until the arrival of complete returns. Mr. Jones proceeded at some length to sustain the position which he had assumed. Mr. WOZENCRAFT entered into an elaborate defence of the grounds upon

which he claimed a seat in this Convention. He had been urged by his friends, much against his will, to submit his name as a candidate. It was known to many pre. sent that he had received a large vote in the district of San Joaquin, there being no opposing candidate. He came here knowing he had received this vote, and without the slightest expectation of being refused a seat. He had subjected him. self to a great sacrifice of time and money in the hope of being enabled to serve that constituency who had conferred the honor of election upon him. He had agreed to every honorable compromise proposed by gentlemen on the floor, and had studiously avoided everything calculated to lead to dissention. It was his sincere hope that the difficulty would be amicably adjusted, and that the House would proceed to business in a spirit of harmony and concession. Whatever might be its decision he would abide by it, confident that it would be actuated by no other than just and patriotic motives.

Mr. Moore briefly defended his claim, stating that the vote which he had re. ceived in the San Joaquin district greatly exceeded that of his colleague (Mr. Wozencraft.) He did not claim any priority or preference on that account, but merely submitted the fact, in common with others, to show that he did not come here without some ground for supposing that he was entitled to a seat.

Mr. Borts proposed to amend the resolution (Mr. Gwin's) by striking out all after the word "resolved," and inserting the following: “That the report be re. committed to the Committee with instructions to report what members, in addition to those returned by General Riley in his message, are entitled to seats in this Convention, with the facts and circumstances attending their election.” He had seen a good deal of parliamentary bodies, and had read a great many reports made by Committees, but never such a report as that made to this House. It was, to say the least of it, the briefest and most unsatisfactory report that ever came under his observation. The Convention was called upon to vote upon a question in which it was utterly in the dark. This Committee was raised to ascertain the facts that the House might vote understandingly. Where were the facts ? It was utterly impossible to vote without them. A great mistake had been committed. In every parliamentary body something must be taken for granted ; some start must be given. As a constituent part of every election, was the returning officer. By the adoption of the proclamation of Governor Riley, the people made it their act, and as such it was in full force and effect. General Riley was made, by the adoption of that proclamation, the returning officer of this Convention. The judges and magistrates of election were directed to make sealed returns to the office of the Secretary of State. The inference is conclusive, that the certificates of election were to issue from that department. It has been done. That statement has been made to this House. According to all parliamentary usage, the per. sons therein named, and no others, have a prima facia right to seats on this floor,

Messrs. Hill and Tefft sustained the position taken in the report, and defended the action of the Committee.

Mr. Borts finally withdrew his proposed amendment.

Messrs. McCARVER, SHANNON, GWIN, SHERWOOD, HALLECK, BOTTS, PRICE, GILBERT, and Semple continued the debate, chiefly in relation to the representation of the respective districts which they represented.

Mr. GILBERT regretted exceedingly that the recommendation of the Governor in regard to the supernumerary delegates in the different districts should have brought about the confusion which existed in the Convention. He was certain that the recommendation was made with the best motives, and having in view the best ends. He was also satisfied that the Committee, in their report on this case, had done what they conceived to be their duty, and though he regretted that they had not given full statistics opposite the name of each delegate, yet the principal which they had acted upon, of taking the highest number of votes cast for each delegate, as the data upon which to base his election, was the proper one. The only evidence of a right to a seat in this body, was the election returns, which alone could prove that the delegate claiming admittance had received a majority of the votes of his district over and above a certain number of men who had re. ceived a minority of those votes. For the purpose of keeping the questions at issue as distinct as possible, be submitted the following amendment to the motion of the gentleman from San Francisco (Mr. Gwin :)

Resolved, That so much of the report of the committee on Privileges and Elections as relates to the districts of San Diego, Los Angeles, Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, Monterey, San Jose, and Sonoma, be received and adopted by this Convention.

Mr. Gwin accepted Mr. Gilbert's amendment as a substitute for his motion, and moved to amend by adding the following:

Resolved, That J. M. Jones and O. M. Wozencraft, of San Joaquin district ; P. O. Crosby and John McDougal, of Sacramento district; W. D. M. Howard, Rodman M. Price, A. J. Ellis and Francis J. Lippitt, of the district of San Francisco, are all duly elected delegates of this Convention, and that they be now admitted as such.

Mr. Gwin withdrew his amendment to allow Mr. Botts 10 submit the following: That the district of San Diego shall be entitled to 2 delegates, Los Angeles 4, Santa Barbara 2, San Luis 2, Monterey 5, San Jose 5, San Francisco 10, Sonoma 4, Sacramento 15, San Joaquin 15.

A debate of considerable length here arose in relation to the representation of the different districts, in which Messrs. Gwin, McCARVER, SHANNON, SHERWOOD, PRICE, and Borts took part.

The previous question was called, but the House

refused to sustain the call. The question was then taken on the amendment offered by Mr. Botts, and it was rejected.

The question was then taken on the resolution of Mr. Gilbert, and it was adopted.

On motion of Mr. GWIN, so much of the report of the Committee as was not included in the resolution of Mr. Gilbert was rejected.

The Convention then adjourned to 9 A. M. to-morrow.

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 4, 1849. The Convention met pursuant to adjournment. The minutes of yesterday were read and approved.

The CHAIR stated that the roll would be called according to the communication of the Secretary of State, the delegates therein mentioned being those entitled to seats according to the message of Governor Riley.

Mr. Borts said that he came so near the mark last night, that he was encour. aged to let fly another shaft at the target of reconciliation. He proposed to move the reconsideration of the vote of last night, by which the amendment of Mr. Gil. bert was adopted, fixing a certain representation of the southern districts. His object was to introduce the following resolution, which he was inclined to think would command the votes of this House, and settle this vexed question :

Resolved, That the representation in this Convention from the several districts shall be apportioned as follows: San Diego, two; Los Angelos, five; Santa Barbara, three; San Luis Obispo, two; Monterey, five; San Jose, seven; San Francisco, nine; Sonoma, six; Sacramento, fifteens San Joaquin, fifteen.

He did not think the question needed further debale, and would therefore be content to move a reconsideration of the vote on Mr. Gilbert's resolution.

The question was taken on the reconsideration, and it was carried.
Mr. Botrs then offered his resolution as an amendment.
Mr. Gwin hoped there would be a direct vote on this amendment.

Mr. McCarver desired to offer an amendment providing that a majority of the members from each district shall control the absent votes. If this plan was adopted, he thought it would prove satisfactory; but if not, the amendment was a mockery. He had seen sach a course taken in conventions several times.

Mr. SHERWOOD sustained the proposition of Mr. McCarver.

Mr. CARILLO felt a diffidence in addressing the assembly, from his ignorance of the English language. He claimed its indulgence, therefore, as he was compelled to speak through an interpreter. He had seen the representation presented in the amendment offered by Mr. Botts, and he was surprised to find that Los Angelos was put upon a level with Monterey. It was well known that Los Angelos had double the number of inhabitants. He likewise perceived that Santa Barbara had only three members. He hoped Mr. Botts would amend his resolution by giving to Los Angelos and Santa Barbara the number of representatives to which they were entitled. In his opinion Santa Barbara ought to have a number equal to Monterey, and Los Angelos seven members.

Mr. Hill moved an additional amendment, as follows:

That the district of Los Angelos be entitled to seven delegates instead of five; and Santa Barbara five instead of three.

Mr. TEFFT hoped the amendment would be taken into consideration and adopted.

Mr. Botrs said, if it was in his power he would accept the amendment. He would, however, vote for it.

The question was then taken on the amendment of Mr. Hill, which was adopted. The question recurring on Mr. Gilbert's resolution as amended by Mr. Botis,

Mr. Gwin remarked that it seemed to have been an understanding among those who had compromised this question, that it was intended each district should have the strength to which it was entitled, whether all the members were present or

not. In order to test the sense of the Convention on this subject, he would, in ac. cordance with the wishes of the members from San Joaquin and Sacramento, submit a proposition to the effect that the majority of the members from each dis. trict present may vote for absentees from their respective districts.

Mr. Norton objected to any such proceeding. He thought a proposition of this kind should not be offered for the purpose of riding it in upon another proposition which might possibly meet the wishes of the House.

Mr. HALLEOK also objected. The Convention would never be able to get through its business, if each delegation was to vote for absent members. If a few members from one district was to cast fifteen or twenty votes by proxy on any question, members from other districts would naturally and justly object to such a proceeding. He thought it absolutely essential to the progress of business that each member should do his own voting, and that the delegation from each district should be distinctly determined. If one member who was present to-day, should be sick to.morrow, he did not think other members had a right to vote for him.

Mr. SHANNON considered the proposition extremely objectionable. It was the very worst principle that could be adopted. The precedent would be most inju. rious. For his own part, if he had to vote for any absentee, he wished at least to have the power of attorney.

Mr. SHERWOOD presumed if the grounds of the motion were properly understood, his colleague (Mr. Shannon) would not object. It was generally admitted that the people of Sacramento were entitled to a much larger representation than either San Joaquin or San Francisco. In order to give San Francisco the votes which it claimed, and at the same time give Sacramento and San Joaquin the number of votes to which they were entitled, this proposition was made. The ratio of repre. sentation was to be fixed upon by the Heuse, and it was important that it should be done on the most liberal terms.

Mr. Hill thought the House was losing time in this discussion.

The CHAIR was of opinion that the discussion was not appropriate to the ques. tion before the House.

Mr. SEMPLE understood the question to be on the amendment of Mr. Botts as amended by Mr. Hill. The primary question before the House, therefore, was, whether this ratio of representation shall be agreed upon. He intended voting for this amendment, as he believed it to be a fair apportionment. One additional word. It was utterly unprecedented in any Convention held in any State, or in any parliamentary body, to vote by proxy. Where there were different nations to be represented, such a practice might be tolerated, but he hoped there was a general feeling in this Convention against the principle.

Mr. Gwin did not wish to be misunderstood on this question. His only object, as stated in the first instance, was to give the districts of Sacramento and San Joaquin their full complement of votes. He did not desire that members present should vote for absent members ; but if an increase was made in other districts, he claimed the right of those districts to an additional representation. He held that the Convention could with perfect propriety give to Sacramento and San Joaquin the power to cast fifteen votes. It was not bound by the action of any other body. It was a body composed of the original representatives of the people. He did not introduce, nor did he favor any proposition to do wrong to any portion of California ; but these two mining districts, having the largest population, should have the largest representation. It was simply from a desire to facilitate the or. ganization of the House that he had submitted the proposition.

The question then recurring on the amendment of Mr. Botts as amended by Mr. Hill, it was adopted.

Mr. Borts offered the following resolution : Resolved, That a committee of three be appointed to report forthwith to this Convention the names of the additional delegates referred to in the foregoing resolution, who have received the greatest number of votes in their respective districts.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »