light or other light, and fresh water, or either, shall furnish the same, so far as necessary and required, free and without charge, to all public buildings, institutions, and school houses belonging to such city, and used for municipal purposes; and such company introducing and supplying water shall also furnish the same, free and without charge, to the Fire Department, and for the extinguishment of fires. Each company, its property and franchise, shall be liable to such city and its inhabitants for the performance of these conditions. SEC. 24. In counties or cities having more than one hundred thousand inhabitants no person shall, at the same time, be a State officer and a city or county officer, nor hold two city or county offices. SEC. 25. No public work or improvement of any description whatsoever shall be made or done, in any city, in, upon, or about the streets thereof, or otherwise, the cost and expense of which is made chargeable or may be assessed upon private property by special assessment, unless an estimate of such cost and expense shall be made, and an assessment in proportion to benefits, on the property to be affected or benefited, and shall be collected and paid into the city treasury before such work or improvement shall be commenced, or any contract for letting or doing the same authorized or performed. SEC. 26. The Legislature shall not pass any local or special law in the cases following: Regulating the affairs of counties, cities, towns, townships, wards, City or County Boards of Education, school districts, or other political or municipal corporation or subdivision of the State; Authorizing the laying out, opening, altering, maintaining, or vacating roads, highways, streets, alleys, town plats, or parks; Relating to cemeteries, graveyards, or public grounds not of the State; Locating or changing county seats; Incorporating cities, towns, or villages, or changing their charters; Creating offices, or prescribing the powers and duties of officers in counties, cities, towns, townships, or school districts; Regulating the fees or extending the powers and duties of county or municipal officers; show them that this host of attachés are entirely unnecessary. We can MR. BROWN. I move to lay the resolution on the table. MR. BARNES. I desire to say now THE PRESIDENT. The motion is not debatable. The ayes and noes were demanded by Messrs. Barnes, Casserly, Freud, The roll was called, and the resolution was laid on the table by the Farrell, Gregg, Regulating the management and maintenance of public schools, the building or repairing of School or Court Houses, and raising of money for such purposes; Extending the time for the assessment or collection of county, city, or other municipal taxes, or otherwise relieving any Assessor or Collector of Harrison, county or city taxes from the due performance of the official duties, or their securities from liability; Legalizing the unauthorized or invalid acts of any officer or agent of any county or municipality thereof; Directing the payment of money out of the treasury, or by any officer, of any county, city, or town, without the consent of such county, city, and town; Directing the payment of money from out of the treasury, or by any officer of, or creating any liability against, a county, city, town, or any public or municipal corporation, without its consent. MR. HAGER. I ask that the usual number be printed. Belcher, Lindow, McCallum, McComas, Weller, McConnell, Wellin, Barnes, Harvey, Beerstecher, Hilborn, Howard, Huestis, Johnson, Lampson, Lewis, McFarland, Dudley, of Solano, Dunlap, Finney, Freud, MR. HAGER. I move that the usual number, four hundred and Edgerton, eighty copies, be printed. So ordered. SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT. MR. HAGER. I have another report from the committee, which is Hall, very short. THE SECRETARY read: The Committee on City, County, and Township Organizations have had under consideration a number of petitions and memorials, asking that the following proposition be inserted in the new Constitution, to wit: "SECTION. The Legislature shall, at its first session, enact a law whereby the qualified voters of any county, voting precinct, town, or city, by a majority vote, from time to time, may determine whether the sale of intoxicating liquors shall be prohibitied within the prescribed limits." And the committee being equally divided in opinion at the time it was considered in the presence of eight members thereof, instruct me to report the petitions and memorials back, with the recommendation that the above proposition be committed to the Committee of the Whole for further consideration and action. JNO. S. HAGER, Chairman. MR. MURPHY. I move we adjourn. MR. HOWARD, of Los Angeles. move we adjourn until Monday, THE PRESIDENT. The question is on the motion to adjourn. MR. HOWARD, of Los Angeles. I move we now adjourn until Mon- The ayes and noes were demanded by Messrs. Stedman, Hunter, The roll was called, and the motion lost by the following vote: THE SECRETARY read: MR. BARNES. Mr. President: That resolution sufficiently explains itself. Now, as far as we are concerned, we are bound to stay here, pay or no pay, until the work shall have been accomplished. As far as the employés are concerned, there is no such contract, or obligation on their part, expressed or implied, and I think we ought to reserve a certain amount of the appropriation for their benefit. I think "the laborer is worthy of his hire." WHEREAS, The appropriation for the expenses of this Convention is now nearly exhausted, and the session is likely to be prolonged to the limit expressed in the Act of the Legislature convening this body, and perhaps beyond it; Resolved, That when payments from said appropriation shall reduce the balance in the State treasury to the sum of seven thousand dollars, the President be and he is hereby directed not to certify any payroll for the per diem of raembers, and that said unexpended balance be reserved exclusively to the expenses of the Convention, Andrews, other than per diem of members, and to the payment of salaries and wages of Barbour, employés. Barry, Barton, Casserly, Keyes, Lampson, McFarland, McNutt, NOES. Davis, Dean, Dunlap, Shafter, Sweasey, Turner, Van Voorhies, Walker, of Tuolu’e-34. Heiskell, Holmes, Evey, Hunter, Farrell, Inman, Burt, Caples, Chapman, MR. WHITE. I trust the resolution will not pass. If the employés Condon, are not willing to continue their work, I think we can get along very well Cross, without them, and by so doing we will set an example to the State, and Crouch. Morse, NOES. McConnell, Neunaber, Ohleyer, Prouty, Wyatt, Mr. President-63. Schomp, Shurtleff. Smith, of 4th District, Stevenson, Tuttle, RESOLUTION REGARDING A CHINESE MEMORIAL. Resolved, That a committee of three be appointed by the Chair to draft petitions to be forwarded by this Convention to the Governors of Oregon, Nevada, and Washington Territory, requesting their Exceliencies to memorialize the President of the United States and the Senate, on behalf of their States and Territory, for a modification of the Burlingame treaty, now existing between the Chinese Empire and the Republic of the United States of America. THE PRESIDENT. The question is on the adoption of the resolution. CHINESE IMMIGRATION. The Convention took up the special order for the day-the report of the Committee on Chinese, which was as follows: ARTICLE Waters, And, at four o'clock and fifty minutes P. M., the Convention stood adjourned until Monday morning, at nine o'clock and thirty minutes SEC. 2. Any corporation incorporated by or under the laws of this State, or doing business in this State, shall forfeit its franchises, and all legal rights thereunder, if it ever employs, in any capacity whatever, foreigners who are not eligible to become citizens of the United States under the laws of Congress. This section shall be enforced by appropriate legislation. SEC. 3. No alien ineligible to become a citizen of the United States shall ever be employed on any State, county, municipal, or other public work in this State after the adoption of this Constitution. SEC. 4. All further immigration to this State of Chinese, and all other persons ineligible to become citizens of the United States under the naturalization laws thereof, is hereby prohibited. The Legislature shall provide for the enforcement of this section by appropriate legislation. SEC. 5. No person who is not eligible to become a citizen of the United States shall be permitted to settle in this State after the adoption of this Constitution. SEC. 6. Foreigners ineligible to become citizens of the United States shall not have the right to sue or be sued in any of the Courts of this State, and any lawyer appearing for or against them, or any of them, in a civil proceeding, shall forfeit his license to practice law. No such foreigner shall be granted license to carry on any, business, trade, or occupation in this State, nor shall such license be granted to any person or corporation employing them. No such foreigner shall have the right oppose any part of this report. It was upon this consideration we all SEC. 7. The presence of foreigners ineligible to become citizens of the United States is declared hereby to be dangerous to the well being of the State, and the Legislature shall discourage their immigration by all the means within its power. It shall provide for their exclusion from residence or settlement in any portion of the State it may see fit, or from the State, and provide suitable methods, by their taxation, or otherwise, for the expense of such exclusion. It shall prescribe suitable penalties for the punishment of persons convicted of introducing them within forbidden limits. It shall delegate all necessary power to the incorporated cities and towns of this State for their removal without the limits of such cities and towns. SEC. 8. Public officers within this State are forbidden to employ Chinese in any capacity whatever. Violation of this provision shall be ground for removal from office; and no person shall be eligible to any office in this State who, at the time of election and for three months before, employed Chinese. The first plan proceeds upon the theory that the State has not within itself the power to prohibit Chinese immigration. It proposes to deal with these people as a part of the population of the State, after they have once mingled with our people and become a part of the people. The Government of the United States, under the Constitution, has the power to regulate commerce, both foreign and inter-State, and the Supreme Court of the United States has decided that the power is vested exclusively in the General Government. The States, while they have the power to regulate internal affairs of the State, to prescribe rules and laws for the government of the people of the State-in short, while the State exercises home rule, still there is above and beyond the State a national sovereignty which deals with all these subjects, treaties between nations, intercourse with foreign nations, foreign commerce, and navigation. Whatever may be done under the first section, must be tion, or government of the people of a State which has not been delegated to the Government of the United States, and which has been reserved to the State, or the people of the State. SEC. 9. The exercise of the right of suffrage shall be denied to any IN COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE. THE CHAIRMAN. The report of the Committee on Chinese is before the committee. The Secretary will read the first section. THE SECRETARY read section one, as follows: It is believed by the committee that the State has the power to pro- SECTION 1. The Legislature shall have and shall exercise the power MR. LARKIN. I would like to have a decision as to how this discussion is to be carried on. Will the debate be confined to the section under consideration, or will it range over the whole thing? I would like a decision on that point before we proceed. THE CHAIRMAN. The debate will extend over the entire report. Under the rule each section has to be read. MR. AYERS. The Chairman of the committee is not in the hall, have understood. THE CHAIRMAN. The first section is under consideration. The Secretary will read it again. THE SECRETARY read: SECTION 1. The Legislature shall have and shall exercise the power to enact all needful laws, and prescribe necessary regulations for the protection of the State, and the counties, cities, and towns thereof, froin the burdens and evils arising from the presence of aliens, who are or who may become vagrants, paupers, mendicants, criminals, or invalids afflicted with contagious or infectious diseases, and aliens otherwise dangerous or detrimental to the well-being or peace of the State, and to impose conditions upon which such persons may reside in the State, and to provide the means and mode of their removal from the State upon failure or refusal to comply with such conditions; provided, that nothing contained in the foregoing shall be construed to impair or the power of the Legislature to pass such other police laws or regulations as it may deem necessary. SPEECH OF MR. MILLER. every effort which the State has made to prevent and restrict this immi- vessels. The first section proceeds upon a different plan. We do not in that MR. MILLER. Mr. Chairman: It is expected by a great majority of the people of California, that this Convention will take some decisive action in respect to what is regarded by the people of this State as a great increasing and expanding evil in this country-the introduction and presence of large numbers of Chinese. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, to be compelled to state that the committee to whom was referred this question, was not able to agree upon any definite plan to be adopted by the State for the extirpation of this evil. The committee found, directly after the discussion began, that its members were divided in opinion in respect to the measures that should be adopted. There was no division of opinion in respect to the character of this immigration, or upon its effects upon the country. All agreed that Chinese immigration was an evil, and that if possible the further influx of Chinese to this country should be stopped. But we differed in the measures which were to be adopted for remedying this evil. A report was made by a majority of the committee, but instead of devising or presenting a concise plan for adoption by the State, we presented three distinct plans. Now, while a majority of the committee were in favor of one or the other of these plans, it cannot be said that all the members of that majority were in favor of any of the plans, except the one embraced in the first section of the article. That section was agreed upon unanimously. But it was reserved to every member of the committee in Convention to support or territories paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice. But they "And, further, I may here remark that this right of taxation claimed "But I have said the States have the right to turn off paupers, vaga- "As already indicated, the provisions of the Constitution of the United bonds, and fugitives from justice, and the States where slaves are, have States, on which the principal reliance is placed to make void the a constitutional right to exclude all such as are, from a common ancestry statute of New York, is that which gives to Congress the power to or country, of the same class of men. And when Congress shall legis-regulate commerce with foreign nations.' As we said in United States late-if it be not disrespectful for one who is a member of the judiciary vs. Halliday, 3 Wall. 417: Commerce with foreign nations means to suppose so absurd a thing of another department of government-to commerce between citizens of the United States and citizens and submake paupers, vagabonds, suspected persons, and fugitives from justice jects of foreign governments.' It means trade, and it means intersubjects of admission into the United States, I do not doubt it will be course. It means commercial intercourse between nations, and parts of found and declared that such persons are not within the regulating | nations, in all its branches. It includes navigation as the principal power which the United States has over commerce. Paupers, vaga- means by which foreign intercourse is effected. To regulate this trade bonds, and fugitives never have been subjects of rightful national inter- and intercourse is to prescribe the rules by which it shall be conducted. course, or of commercial regulations, except in the transportation of The mind,' says the great Chief Justice, can scarcely conceive a systhem to distant colonies to get rid of them, or for punishment as con- tem for regulating commerce between nations which shall be silent on victs. They have no rights of national intercourse; no one has the right the admission of the vessels of one nation into the ports of another;' to transport them without the authority of the law, from where they and he might have added, with equal force, which prescribed no terms are to any other place, and their only rights where they may be, are for the admission of their cargo or their passengers." (Gibbons vs. such as the law gives to all men who have not altogether forfeited its Ogden, 9 Wheat. 190.) protection. Further on Mr. Justice Miller says: "A law or rule emanating from any lawful authority, which prescribes terms or conditions on which alone the vessel can discharge its passengers, is a regulation of commerce; and, in case of vessels and passengers coming from foreign ports, is a reg The States may meet such persons upon their arrival in port, and may put them under all proper restraints. They may prevent them from entering their territories, may carry them out or drive them off. But can such a police power be rightfully exercised over those who areulation of commerce with foreign nations." He further says: not paupers, vagabonds, or fugitives from justice? The international right of visitation forbids it. The freedom of liberty of commerce allowed by all European nations to the inhabitants of other nations does not permit it; and the constitutional obligations of the States of this Union to the United States, in regard to commnerce and navigation and naturalization, have qualified the original discretion of the States as to who shall come and live in the United States." 66 "The accuracy of these definitions is scarcely denied by the advocates of the State statutes. But assuming that in the formation of our government certain power necessary to the administration of their internal affairs are reserved to the States, and that among these powers are those for the preservation of good order, of the health and comfort of the citizens, and their protection against pauperism and contagious and infectious diseases, and other matters of legislation of like character, they I will now read a brief extract to the same effect, from the opinion of insist that the power here exercised falls within this class, and belongs Mr. Justice Grier, in the same case, 7th Howard, 450: "It must be borne rightfully to the State. in mind (what has sometimes been forgotten) that the controversy in This power, frequently referred to in the decisions of this Court, has this case, is not with regard to the right claimed by the State of Massa-been, in general terms, somewhat loosely called the police power. It is chusetts, in the second section of this Act, to repel from her shores not necessary for the course of this discussion to attempt to define it lunatics, idiots, criminals, or paupers, which any foreign country, or more accurately than it has been defined already. It is not necessary, even one of her sister States might endeavor to thrust upon her; nor because whatever may be the nature and extent of that power, where the right of any State, whose domestic security might be endangered by not otherwise restricted, no definition of it and no urgency for its use the admission of free negroes, to exclude them from her borders. The can authorize a State to exercise it in regard to a subject-matter which right of the State has its foundation in the sacred law of self-defense, has been confided exclusively to the discretion of Congress by the Con-which no power granted to Congress can restrict or annul. It is admitted stitution." by all, that those powers which relate merely to municipal legislation, or what may be more properly called internal police, are not surrendered or restrained; and that it is as competent and necessary for a State to provide precautionary measures against the physical pestilence which may arise from unusual and infectious articles imported." Now, these were cases in which the State of New York and the State of Massachusetts attempted to impose a tax upon passengers arriving from foreign countries; that is, they first attempted to require a bond from the master of the vessel that such parties should not become a charge upon the State. The Act provides that they might go on board the ship, take a list of passengers, see who they were and where they came from, exact a bond from the master of the vessel in the sum of five hundred dollars that these people should not become a government charge. In lieu of a bond it provided that they might accept a tax of one dollar and fifty cents from each passenger. The Court decided that this was a restriction of commerce, and therefore contrary to the Con-under the statute against the landing of lewd women. Says the Court: stitution of the United States and void. The opinions I have just read go to the extent of giving the State power to protect itself against paupers, vagrants, and criminals. The second plan presented here in this report goes to the extent of compelling prohibition of Chinese immigration. The section which embraces it is as follows: Chief Justice Marshall, in a case reported, 9 Wheat. 210, says "that it has been contended that if a law passed by a State, in the exercise of its acknowledged sovereignty, comes into conflict with a law passed by Congress in pursuance of the Constitution, they affect the subject and each other like equal opposing powers. But the framers of the Constitution foresaw this state of things, and provided for it by declaring the supremacy not only of itself but of the laws made in pursuance thereof. The nullity of any act inconsistent with the Constitution is produced by the declaration that the Constitution is supreme. When the Federal Government has acted, he says: In every such case the Act of Congress or the treaty is supreme, and the laws of the State, though enacted in the exercise of power not controverted, must yield to it."" Again, in the case of Chi Lung vs. Freeman et al., 2 Otto, 279, the Court held the same doctrine. This was a case sent up from San Francisco, where the person had been arrested on board the vessel, "We are not called upon to decide for or against the right of a State, in the absence of legislation by Congress, to protect herself by necessary and proper laws against paupers and convicted criminals from abroad, nor to lay down the definite limit of such right if it exists. Such a right can only arise from a vital necessity for its exercise, and cannot be carried beyond the scope of that necessity. When a State statute, limited to provisions necessary and appropriate to that object alone, shall, in a proper controversy, come before us, it will be time enough to decide that question. The statute of California goes so far beyond what is necessary, or even appropriate for this purpose, as to be wholly without any sound definition of the right under which it is supposed to be justified." There is one more decision I desire to read, which illustrates the views of the Supreme Court of the United States upon this subject of the State protecting herself against paupers, vagrants, and others. In the case of "Railroad Company vs. Husen," the Court said: "All further immigration to this State of Chinese, and all other persons ineligible to become citizens of the United States under the naturalization laws thereof, is hereby prohibited. The Legislature shall provide for the enforcement of this section by appropriate legislation." That is a separate and distinct plan from the other. And if we could-if the State had the power to enforce such a prohibition, it would certainly end the Chinese question at once. But I take the ground that the State has no such power. I think it is impolitic and unwise for us, at this time, to take any such position. The United States is a nation, and California is not a nation. It is not in the power of California to seal up the Golden Gate, and declare, virtually, there shall be no intercourse with foreign nations. Commercial intercourse, of every species and character, is a matter in which all the people of all the States are interested, and it is not in the power of any State to pass laws nullifying the Acts of Congress, or the treaties made in pursuance of the Constitution, regulating commerce or intercourse with foreign nations; and I may say here, that I consider this too plain for argument, and I would not argue it were it not that some distinguished gentlemen on this floor have taken the position that the State has this power, and they appeared before the committee and made arguments which con-health, comfort, and quiet of all persons, and the protection of ali propvinced a majority of the committee that the State of California had the power to seal up the Golden Gate, and stop the Chinese. If this State has the power to interfere with commerce to the extent of prohibiting the subjects of China from entering the ports of the United States, within the State of California, then the State of New York has the power to close the ports of the United States, within that State, against the citizens of France or England. Neither the Constitution of the United States nor the treaties with foreign powers make distinction between the citizens or subjects of nations, with whom the United States are at peace, and with whom there are treaty obligations in respect to commerce, navigation, and the right of residence in the respective countries. I will now read brief extracts from the opinion of the Court in the case of Hender-sons afflicted by contagious or infectious diseases-a right founded, as son vs. Mayor of New York et al., 2d Otto, 269, delivered by Mr. Justice Miller, United States Supreme Court. The Court says: "We are thus brought to the question whether the Missouri statute is a lawful exercise of the police power of the State. We admit that the deposit in Congress of the power to regulate foreign commerce and commerce among the States was not a surrender of that which may be properly denominated police power. What that power is, it is difficult to define with sharp precision. It is generally said to extend to making regulations promotive of domestic order, morals, health, and safety. As was said in Thorpe vs. The Rutland and Burlington Railroad Company, 27 Vermont, 149, it extends to the protection of the lives, limbs, erty within the State.' It was further said, that, by the general police power of the State, persons and property are subjected to all kinds of restraints and burdens, in order to secure the general comfort, health, and prosperity of the State-of the perfect right of the Legislature to do which, no question ever was, or, upon acknowledged general principles, ever can be made, so far as natural persons are concerned.' It may also be admitted that the police powers of a State justifies the adoption of precautionary measures against social evils. Under it a State may legislate to prevent the spread of crime, or pauperism, or disturbance of the peace. It may exclude from its limits convicts, paupers, idiots, and lunatics, and persons likely to become a public charge, as well as perintimated, in the passenger case, by Mr. Justice Greer, in the sacred law of self-defense. (Vide 3 Sawyer, 283.) The same principle, it may also # * or from the State, and provide suitable methods, by their taxation or otherwise, for the expense of such exclusion. It shall prescribe suitable penalties for the punishment of persons convicted of introducing them within forbidden limits. Shall delegate all necessary power to the incorporated cities and towns of this State for their removal without the limits of such cities and towns. "SEC. 8. Public officers within this State are forbidden to employ Chinese in any capacity whatever. Violation of this provision shall be ground for removal from office; and no person shall be eligible to any office in this State who, at the time of election and for three months before, employed Chinese. be conceded, would justify the exclusion of property dangerous to the property of citizens of the State; for example, animals having contagious or infectious diseases. All these exertions of power are in the immediate connection with the protection of persons and property against noxious acts of other persons, or such a use of property as is injurious to the property of others. They are self-defensive. Neither the unlimited powers of a State to tax, nor any of its large political powers, can be exercised to such an extent as to work a practical assumption of the powers properly conferred upon Congress by the Constitution. Many acts of a State may, indeed, affect commerce, without amounting to regulation of it in the constitutional sense of the term; and it is sometimes difficult to define the distinction between that which merely "SEC. 9. The exercise of the right of suffrage shall be denied to any affects or influences, and that which regulates or furnishes a rule of person employing Chinese in this State, and it shall be a sufficient chalconduct. There is no such difficulty in the present case. While we lenge that the person offering to vote is employing Chinese, or has unhesitatingly admit that a State may pass sanitary laws, and laws for employed them within three months next preceding the election." the protection of life, liberty, health, or property within its borders; These sections proceed upon the same theory, and form together a plan while it may prevent persons and animals suffering under contagious for dealing with the Chinese evil. This plan is directed to the employor infectious diseases, or convicts, etc., from entering the State; while, ment of Chinese, to the denial of their right to the protection of the law. for the purpose of self-protection, it may establish quarantine and I do not propose to discuss it, but I characterize it as a plan of starvation reasonable inspection laws; it may not interfere with transportation by constitutional provision. If the Chinese are not to be employed by into or through the State beyond what is absolutely necessary for its any body, are not permitted to labor, they cannot live. Because by labor self-protection. It may not, under the cover of exerting its police power, all must live, and if you deprive them of the right to labor, they must substantially prohibit or burden either foreign or inter-State commerce." starve. That is the logical sequence of the position assumed by the advoI think these cases sufficiently illustrate the law upon this subject: so cates of this prohibition against the labor of these people. It is indefenthat while the State may have the power to protect itself against these sible, for it deprives the prohibited people of the right of life. I hold that admitted dangerous classes, and to protect the life and health of its the right to labor is as high and sacred a right as the right to live. That people, it has not the power to make any regulation which will interfere you cannot deprive these people of this right under the treaty with China. with commerce with foreign nations. Now, I do not pretend that this That it is against the spirit of the age, against all laws of civilized comfirst section of the report is a complete system by which we can rid munities. But this third plan goes still further, it strikes at the liberty ourselves of Chinese immigration. I know it is not. But I am quite of the citizens of the United States, who, as citizens, have the right to satisfied that it is not within the power of the State to establish any employ whoever they choose. I hold that you cannot abridge that regulations which will prohibit Chinese immigration. I hold that to be right. It is one of the inalienable rights of American citizens. I do not a power which belongs to the General Government and not to the State. care to discuss these four sections, but shall content myself by saying The people of this State cannot lawfully interfere with foreign commerce, that I opposed them in the committee, and shall vote against them here. which includes navigation and the carrying of passengers, except as Now, as to the effect of this first section, it was said that the proposed indicated in the decisions I have read. But the people may memorialize measure does not go far enough. My answer is, it goes just as far as the the Congress or the Executive of the nation, including the treaty-inaking State can go. It goes to the very verge of constitutional power, and the power, for relief from the Chinese evil. I propose, as soon as this dis-State cannot go any further. It is said that it will have no effect. I cussion is over, that the Committee on Chinese shall prepare and present think that it will have a very marked effect. As I said in the beginning, for the adoption of this Convention a memorial to Congress, in respectful the power to prohibit Chinese immigration rests entirely with the Genterms, and giving briefly our reasons for asking Congress to legislate eral Government, and this section is only in aid of such restrictive laws upon this subject, or the treaty-making power, to modify what is known as the General Government may see fit to pass. Its effect will be to rid as the Burlingame treaty, so that those persons known as Chinese coolies ourselves of the Chinese already here, to some extent, if not to the full or laborers may be prohibited from coming into the United States. I extent, because it only relieves us of a certain class of the Chinese. Let desire in this matter that the State of California shall occupy a high us look for a moment at the benefits which will flow from laws passed in and dignified position. We want no hysterical, unstatesmanlike effort pursuance of this section. It is said, and we all know it to be a fact, towards legislation upon this subject. If we should declare here that that the great body of the Chinese immigrants to this State come from the State of California intended to prohibit Chinese immigration, that the southern and eastern provinces of China, along the seashore. That no vessel should bring any Chinese to this State, we should simply they are recruited largely from the criminal classes. Men who hang incite indignation all over the Eastern States, and we would be said to about the sea and rivers, living in boats. A sort of pirates, many of be in rebellion against the United States, and that is a dangerous step them, and all of them, or nearly all of them, thieves and bad men genfor any State to take, to place itself in antagonism to the Government of erally. Now, a very large proportion of the Chinese who came to Calthe United States. ifornia under labor contracts are of the criminal classes a fact which we find illustrated in the criminal Courts of the State. I have here a letter from the County Clerk of San Francisco, dated November seventh, in reply to a letter of inquiry which I addressed to him. He says: "For the twelve months ending October thirty-first, eighteen hunChinese have been arrested, tried, and convicted in the various Courts of this city and county, of different crimes. Number of Chinese confined in the City Prison yesterday, November sixth, one hundred and fourteen; number of Chinese confined in County Jail yesterday, November sixth, one hundred and fifty-four." We have seen the evil of this in former times, and when a proud State like the State of California takes such a step, it is difficult to retrace it. Should we once declare that we intended to check immigration ourselves, without regard to the Federal Government, and against its power, we would be asserting the supremacy of the State over the National Gov-dred and seventy-eight, two thousand four hundred and eighty-eight ernment. It would be attempting to nullify the Acts of Congress and the treaties of the General Government. I say it is dangerous to take such a step. The State of South Carolina began in this way-began by attempting to nullify the Acts of Congress. It began by asserting the doctrine of State supremacy, and went on, step by step, until it found itself in actual open rebellion and war against the government. I cannot give my assent to any measure which would place California in rebellion against the authority of the United States. It has been said we must do something in order to convince the people that we are in earnest; that we must assert some principle, must pass some laws, to show that California is determined to extirpate this evil. It is thought by some that by such a course we would awaken interest in the subject in the Eastern States. But this style of argument is delusive. The people of the Eastern States will awaken to this subject in due time. We must convince them by argument. Assertion will not effect anything; declamation will not effect anything. A wild, spasmodic assertion of State supremacy will make California ridiculous. We must give the Eastern people facts and arguments to show that Chinese immigration is a great and threatening evil, not alone to the State of California, but to the whole Union. Now, there is a third plan contained in the report, which is embraced in sections six, seven, eight, and nine, as follows: "SEC. 6. Foreigners ineligible to become citizens of the United States shall not have the right to sue or be sued in any of the Courts of this State, and any lawyer appearing for or against them, or any of them, in a civil proceeding, shall forfeit his license to practice law. No such foreigner shall be granted license to carry on any business, trade, or occupation in this State, nor shall such license be granted to any person or corporation employing them. No such foreigner shall have the right to catch fish in any of the waters under the jurisdiction of the State; nor to purchase, own, or lease real property in this State, and all contracts of conveyance or lease of real estate to any such foreigner shall be void. "SEC. 7. The presence of foreigners ineligible to become citizens of the United States is declared herein to be dangerous to the well-being of the State, and the Legislature shall discourage their immigration by all the means within its power. It shall provide for their exclusion from residence or settlement in any portion of the State it may see fit, My proposition is to regard those who are convicted of crimes in our Courts as belonging to the criminal class; that conviction of crime in our Courts shall be conclusive evidence that they did belong to the criminal classes in China, and we propose, under this section, to remove them from the State. I hold that it will be cheaper to remove them from the State than to confine them in our prisons. They can be sent back to China for fifteen or twenty dollars each, by the State. I do not propose in all cases that they must necessarily be sent back to China. My proposition goes only to this, that they shall be removed from the State. If the people over on the Eastern side will not hear our complaints; if they say this is not an evil, and that the Chinese are as good as any other class of immigrants-that we are making a great noise and confusion about nothing-let us send over four, or five, or ten thousand of these people-those who are dangerous to the well-being of the State-belonging to the criminal and diseased classes; let us send them a brigade or two of these Chinamen, and see how they like them. There would be no surer way of changing their views upon the Chinese question. There are two hundred and thirty-four Chinese now in the State Penitentiary-thirteen are for life. Thirty-eight of these are for the second, third, fourth, and fifth times. I have here a statement from Governor Johnson, in reply to a letter of inquiry addressed to him. He gives: "Arson, first degree, one; assault, with deadly weapon, two; attempt at burglary, thirteen; burglary, forty; burglary, first degree, forty-two; burglary, second degree, thirty-nine; felony, nine; grand larceny, forty-one; kidnaping, one; murder, three; murder, first degree, eight; murder, second degree, eleven; manslaughter, five; rape, one; robbery, four; petit larceny, second offense, three." I have made an estimate from the best sources of information I could get, and I find that we could at least send out of the State, of these dangerous and burdensome classes, not less than five thousand Chinese every year. And I hold that we can do it at less expense than we could keep them here in prison and hospitals. I hold also, that the State has the power to do it. Certainly it would be right and just, and it would |