Do you propose to put them out to the lowest bidder, who will keep them where their moral training will not be cared for in the least? God knows I hope this Convention is composed of a different element; that they have some feelings of humanity, and some feelings for the little wards and waifs of this State. MR. WEST. I profess to possess as much feeling for these orphan children as any other gentleman, and I do not propose to abandon the waifs of this State, I propose that they shall be cared for in the localities where their mothers reside. eighteen hundred and eighty-four, no money shall be appropriated or The section was rejected, on a division, by a vote of 37 ayes to 40 noes. IN CONVENTION. MR. BIGGS. I asked the gentleman if he proposed to do this, and he nodded his assent. And, my God, has it come to that, that the people of the State propose to abandon these little waifs, and do nothing for them? If so, I say the quicker we leave this State, and emigrate to where civilization, humanity, and religious and moral principles pre-instructed me to report that they have had under consideration the vail, the better it is for all civilized communities. [Applause.] MR. WEST. I desire to answer the question. The gentleman has misunderstood me entirely. I do not proposeMR. BIGGS. I am glad to hear it. MR. WEST. I propose to keep them where their widowed mothers can visit them, and where their mothers can be aided by local and temporary relief. Mr. Murphy in the chair. THE CHAIR. Gentlemen: The Committee of the Whole have article on city, county, and township organization, report the same back and recommend its adoption. MR. HOWARD. Mr. President: I move that the article be printed with the amendments, and placed on file. The motion prevailed. ADJOURNMENT. MR. LINDOW. Mr. President: I move we adjourn. And at five o'clock and thirty-five minutes P. M. the Convention stood adjourned. MR. BIGGS. I find that my friend has got some soul, although I have got to go through a great deal of rubbish to reach it. He wants them taken care of by the county. I want the gentleman to answer this question. The father is dead, and the mother, upon her dying bed, with her five little children, has not the privilege of saying, my children shall go to a Protestant or Catholic society. Where can the mother visit them then? You propose to let them out to the lowest bidder, who will keep them for the least amount of money. I trust that this Convention will give this section such a rebuke as it deserves. This is a whole souled, sympathetic, philanthropic people, and I ask this Convention to never, no never, allow these poor little wards to be peddled out, like a commodity upon the market, to those who will keep them for the small-pro tem. both being absent, Secretary Smith called the Convention to est amount. MR. TULLY. I move that the committee rise and report that they have had under consideration the article on city, county, and township governments, and recommend its adoption. MR. HAGER. I move the committee rise and ask leave to sit again. REMARKS OF MR. ANDREWS. ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTEENTH DAY. Andrews, Barbour, Barry, MR. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman: I hope that the additional section Barton, proposed will be adopted. The gentleman from Butte has entertained Bell, us with a very eloquent appeal for the orphans. The additional section Biggs, proposed by the gentleman from Los Angeles proposes to provide for the Blackmer, orphans of the State. It proposes to provide, through the counties, for Boucher, other indigent persons that inay be residing in the county. In the Brown, mining counties of this State, Mr. Chairman, there are many worthy Burt, men, who are many of them pioneers of the State of California; men Campbell, that belong to that adventurous class which formed the pioneers of this Caples, State; men who have been in the advance in many of the greatest dis-Chapman, coveries that have ever been made in the way of wealth. These men, Charles, many of them, have become disabled; they are becoming aged, and many of them are in indigent circumstances. California owes it to herself that these men should be taken care of, and they should be taken care of by the counties in which they are. The orphans should be taken care of, as has been said by the eloquent gentleman from Butte, and we propose through this section to provide that orphans throughout the State shall be taken care of; not only the orphans that may be sufficiently fortunate enough to be placed in one of these asylums, but all of the orphans of the State. I do not know how the gentleman from Butte voted when that proposition was up which provided that when these institutions that had charge of these orphans receive aid from the State that they should take charge of all the orphans. MR. BIGGS. Do you know of a single instance where an orphan has not been received upon application? MR. ANDREWS. I know that in my county there are many orphans provided for by the Board of Supervisors of the county. I can testify to this knowledge. I know other orphans that are taken care of by a few private individuals contributing together to take care of these orphans. Now, all this section proposes is that the counties of the State shall take care of the orphans and half orphans and aged persons in indigent circumstances in their county; and it provides that after the year eighteen hundred and eighty-four that the State shall make no further contribution to any institution that is not a State institution. In other words, that from and after the year eighteen hundred and eighty-four the State shall stand where it should stand, upon a sound basis; that the State shall not make appropriations for any other purpose than for State purposes, and for State institutions. That is the proposition. It is just giving notice that after eighteen hundred and eighty-four, no appropriations of this character-that is to institutions that are not under State control-shall be made. I do hope that this amendment will be adopted, because it makes it obligatory to take care of the orphans, and those whom it is the highest duty of the State to see cared for and take care of. MR. HOWARD. Mr. Chairman: I move the previous question. Cross, Crouch, Filcher, Howard, of Los Angeles, Ayers, Berry, Boggs, Eagon, The Estee, Fawcett, THE CHAIRMAN. The question is on the adoption of the additional section offered by the gentleman from Los Angeles, Mr. West. Secretary will read it. THE SECRETARY read: "The several counties and cities and counties of the State shall provide for the care and maintenance of minor orphans, half orphans, abandoned children, and aged persons in indigent circumstances, within their respective limits; provided, that from and after the first day of January, McCoy, Miller, Mills, Nelson, LEAVE OF ABSENCE. Van Dyke, Van Voorhies, Walker, of Marin, Wilson, of Tehama, Three days leave of absence was granted Messrs. Van Voorhies and but to stay until they can conclude their business, if it takes all the Dudley, of Solano. time now intervening until the meeting of the next Legislature." The fact is, Mr. President, that the monopolists see the handwriting on the THE JOURNAL. MR. FREUD. Mr. President: I move that the reading of the Jour- wall, and that is the origin of all these efforts. nal be dispensed with, and the same approved. PETITIONS. MR. SCHELL. Mr. President: On Saturday last a petition was received at this place by my colleague Mr. Heiskell, and myself, signed by sixty-three men living at Knights Ferry and the immediate vicinity of that place, in the County of Stanislaus. The purport of the petition is this: It is addressed to this body, requesting this body to adjourn without day, and further requesting myself and my colleague to use what influence we may have to accomplish such an end. Mr. President, I recognize the inalienable right of the people to petition those in authority, and to petition representative bodies for the redress of grievances, when they deem that they have grievances to redress, whether these grievances are real or imaginary; and I, therefore, as I take it to be a duty, present this petition at the request and at the behest, and out of respect for the gentlemen who have petitioned. But, sir, I must say that so far as I am concerned I decline to take any steps in the matter. I believe that a week or two ago this Convention by a very decided vote, decided against the Finney resolution to adjourn. I put myself upon record against that adjournment. I have to say that I am here by the voice of the majority of the people of this State, and I deem it my bounden duty to stay here until the work of this Convention is completed. As to whether the work of this Convention shall be indorsed by the people, that is a matter to be determined after we have submitted our work. As to whether there shall be any appropriations made for the payment of our per diem here, makes no difference to me. Whether I receive pay for the time occupied in serving the people here, makes no difference. I deem, sir, that I am here at the behest of the people, and until they have spoken in some other more forcible manner I deem it my duty to stay here until the work is completed. Our work will then be submitted, and then it will be time enough to say whether the people of the State require or demand a new Constitution or not. I have here a letter which I have received from the same county, and although it is not addressed to this Convention, it indicates quite a different sentiment. After saying that a few months ago the people did not care anything about a new Constitution, or were not much in sympathy with this Convention, the writer says, that "lately there has a change come over the spirit of their dreams, and I hear nothing but commendation. I think the Constitution will get a majority of the votes in this section." That is also from the County of Stanislaus. I will take this occasion to remark that I returned to my home, at Modesto, a week ago last Saturday. I was there some four or five days, and I must say, and I think it is my duty to remark, in behalf of the people there, that they look very favorably upon the work of this Convention. While many of them have nothing to say one way or the other, they deem it prudent to hold their opinions in abeyance as to the work of this Convention until they shall see what it is, so that they can vote intelligently upon the subject. I believe, Mr. President, that is about all I have to say in regard to the matter. MR. HEISKELL. Mr. President: I recognize the right of electors to petition their servants, and further, the right to instruct; and when a majority instructs a public servant it is his duty to obey or resign. The petition just received, and purporting to be from citizens of Knight's Ferry, has sixty-three signatures, and among them electors from four, certainly, and, I think, five precincts of Stanislaus County, and electors from the County of Tuolumne. Some of the precincts are large, as to voters, and others small. Now, sir, there are sixty-three petitioners from the Counties of Stanislaus and Tuolumne, from whose views, as expressed in the petition, I wholly dissent, and some of the signers, with whom I have no acquaintance, and they may represent Stanislaus County. Thus, from two counties, with an aggregate vote of three thousand, only sixty-three requests this body to adjourn. If this petition proves anything, it is that the people indorse the action of this body thus far, or are willing to see the result of their labors before condemning it. Why the electors of Tuolumne County should petition me, I am at loss to know, unless of their ignorance-not knowing who their representatives are, or ignorant of the boundaries of their county. The petition contains a threat; but, sir, sixty-three out of three thousand votes cannot deter me from my duty here by a threat. I will obey a majority of my constituents, but will not be driven by any number by a threat. I will not be bulldozed or bullied by these sixty-three. I think I know the animus of this petition, but will say nothing of it here. It may appear there was wanting a proper respect for this body, from the contents of the petition appearing in the Record-Union newspaper before being presented to this body, but I assure you the petition was not in my charge, nor do I suppose Judge Schell intended it should appear in that paper before being presented here. It is the expiring kick of a few corporationists and capitalists in that section, and I rejoice that it is heartily indorsed by the Record-Union. Mr. WALKER, of Tuolumne. MR. President: I must say, in behalf of the people of Tuolumne County, that I am at a loss to understand why citizens of Tuolumne County should be included in a petition sent to the delegates from Stanislaus, unless it is on account of the bad associations by which they are surrounded. I presume they must live some where down on the boundary of Stanislaus. I certainly feel at liberty to say that this does not reflect the sentiment of the people of Tuolumne County. Whenever they are desirous of sending a petition to this body, I presume that they will present it through their representative, and I desire the gentleman from Stanislaus to furnish me with the list of the names which are presented upon this petition as being citizens of Tuolunne County. I MR. HEISKELL. Our neighbors in Tuolumne are very respectable people. I recognize them as such, and I am very sorry that they should go over into Stanislaus among bad associates; and I regret too that they did not know, if they desired to present a petition, that they had a representative here through whom it could be presented. I have no charge to make against the character of the people of Tuolumne. MR. SCHELL. Mr. President: I neglected to state the reason why this petition was not presented before, and why I suppose the reporters of the papers had received knowledge of it. It came in this wise: did not receive it until after the Convention had passed the order of business under which it could properly have been presented. Further, I had not seen my colleague, Mr. Heiskell. Of course I did not deem it proper to present it until Mr. Heiskell should see it, because it was directed to Mr. Heiskell and myself. It happened to be put in my box. and I took it out and opened it. I showed it two or three delegates here for some advice in regard to the matter, and that is the way, no doubt, that the knowledge was acquired. I did not give the information to the paper. THE CHAIR. Does the Convention desire to have the petition read? [Cries of "read," "read."] THE SECRETARY read: To the Honorable Constitutional Convention, now at Sacramento Assembled: The undersigned citizens and petitioners, of Knight's Ferry, in the County of Stanislaus, regardless of parties, believe the time has arrived when the Convention should adjourn sine die. They have become satisfied, from the nature and character of the discordant elements of which the Convention is composed, that no Consti tution can be framed by it that will be ratified by the people. They are in favor of the Finney resolutions, with this amendment, that the adjournment be sine die. We, each and every one of us, also pledge ourselves that we will never vote for a candidate for the next, or any future Legislature, who will not pledge himself to go against any appropriation to defray the expenses of the Convention incurred after the expiration of one hundred days for which provision had been made by the last Legislature. We also ask our delegates from this county, the Honorables Geo. W. Schell and T. D. Heiskell, to use their best ability and influence to secure an adjournment of the Convention at the earliest day possible. Believing as we do that it would be for the best interests of the State that the Convention should adjourn, we ask that it do adjourn without delay. And we will ever ask and pray for this desirable end. MR. MARTIN, of Santa Cruz. I move to lay it on the table. MR. TULLY. I move that it be referred to the Committee on Water and Water Rights. [Laughter.] THE CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion to lay it on the table. The motion prevailed. MR. WATERS. Mr. President: I move that the Convention resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr. Murphy in the chair, for the purpose of considering the report of the Committee on City, County, and Township Organization, relative to local option. The motion prevailed. IN COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE. THE CHAIRMAN. The Secretary will read the section. THE SECRETARY read: MR. HOWARD. Mr. Chairman: I wish to read a short extract from a letter I have just received this morning from Los Angeles, from a genSEC. The Legislature shall, at its first session, enact a law whereby tleman who is honored with the highest position in this State. I read the qualified voters of any county, voting precinct, town, or city, by a it because I agree with my friend from Stanislaus, that this is the last majority vote, from time to time, may determine whether the sale of small kick of the Central Pacific Railroad Company: "I can see a dis-intoxicating liquors shall be prohibited within the prescribed limits. position on the part of a portion of the press to belittle the labors of the MR. KENNY. Mr. Chairman: I move that the section be stricken out. Convention, and bring upon it contempt; but this is understood. I can see a high grade of conservatism and justice in the action of the Convention. Of course there are many things that cannot be reached until the final result, when we consider the amount of interest represented; but I assure you that the people will sustain the Convention and beg you to give them courage, and tell them not to be in too much haste, REMARKS OF MR. WYATT. MR. WYATT. Mr. Chairman: I hope, sir, that the section will not be stricken out. That section seems to be strictly in accordance with the votes that this Convention has been giving for the last four or five days, upon the subject of local self-government, and it seems to me to and you would have nothing but a political wrangle. I protest, Mr. come nearer home in the right direction, in my view of the case, than almost any other proposition that has been subinitted for the consideration of the Convention. It touches and affects all classes of society, from the oldest to the youngest, and from the poorest to the richest, and from the most weak-minded to the most intellectual of the community. I hope that it will be left so that those who are affected by and interested in the subject shall have the privilege of legally dealing with the ques-original sin; wipe it all out at one fell blow. Why not? Let us repeal tion; I therefore hope that the section will not be stricken out, but that it will be retained as a portion of the Constitution of this State, and that, if the entire State is not willing to adopt the principle in practice, that at least it will stand embodied in the very organic law of the land, and that it will give that privilege even to the humblest township or village, as it may be subdivided, in this State; that it would give that portion of a community who desire it, a right to speak, and to speak as they desire upon that subject, and not be left to the mercy of the Supreme Court, or any body else but themselves, to say whether they have that right to speak or not. Sir, I might refer-and it possibly would be permissible to refer to a circumstance that occurred during my canvass for a seat in this Convention. The question of local option was mentioned incidentally, and it was then that a man who had spent ten years of a valuable portion of his life, and ten thousand dollars, in the saloons, and was then working upon the street, said to me: "Wyatt, stand for local option. I have been the very servant of whisky mills for ten years in this county, and I have drank up and wasted in whisky mills, ten thousand dollars that I have made in this valley. I will support local option to-day, and I want you to stand for local option. I do not want to be deprived of the privilege of voting for local option; it might have saved me from the position I now occupy." I speak in the interest and in behalf of men, women, and children of the high and the low, of the rich and the poor; I ask for them, that the privilege be granted to them of self-government, in that respect. I hope that the section will not be stricken out. REMARKS OF MR. TOWNSEND. MR. TOWNSEND. Mr. Chairman: I also hope that this section will not be stricken out. I cannot see what objection this Convention can have to people regulating their own affairs in their own districts and municipalities. It certainly is purely self-government. This Convention, on Saturday, saw fit to permit the cities to govern themselves, and establish separate governments and govern themselves in their own municipalities in every particular; and now I think, in any district, or county, or municipality, where the people think that saloons are a nuisance and a detriment, and the inajority of the people are against allowing them to exist, that they should be permitted to decide the question for themselves. I cannot see what objection anybody can have to that section. It only allows the people, if they consider that saloons are a nuisance, that they are breeders of crime, that they are a source of great evil, that they fill their penitentiaries and jails and poor houses, to vote upon that question, and see whether they will have them in their midst or not. I hope the section will stand. REMARKS OF MR. CAPLES. MR. CAPLES. I hope that this section will be stricken out. The gentleman from Mendocino desires to know why the people of municipalities should not be permitted to govern themselves in this matter. I hope to be able to give the gentleman a satisfactory reason. Now, so far as the evil of intemperance is concerned, I take it for granted there is but one opinion. We all agree that it is a very great evil, indeed. The next question is, can we remedy that evil by prohibitory legislation and it will be well here to remember that experience is worth something, and is valuable in enabling us to make up our minds in regard to possibilities. What has been the result of an attempt to secure morality by legislation? This experiment has been tried for the last quarter of a century or more in some of the States in New England, and I submit that the only result of it has been to force men to drink behind the door in secret, instead of in public. MR. TOWNSEND. Are you not aware that wherever this has been tried that that large class of men and boys, particularly laboring men, that congregate around saloons and sit there Saturday nights and spend their money, that that is entirely prohibited, and that it is only the upper crust, that have the means, that can go in the back doors and drink? I will ask you another question. Suppose you was doing a business and had a great many men employed, and in the middle of your harvest some one should come along and set up what is called a deadfall right alongside of your field? MR. CAPLES. I have had some experience in this matter. I have been in California more than twenty-nine years. I have had a large number of men in my employ. I have suffered as much as any other man from the intemperance of other men. But is it wise to attempt to enforce morality by legislation? What is the result? We have had some experience here in California, and we know what it has been. The direct result is to set the people to wrangling and quarreling about this proposition, and it is no sooner lost than they raise it again, and I venture the assertion that the adoption of this section would cost the State of California more money-in time and in money itself-than the entire expenses of the State government. Yes, double as much. I assert that it would cost twice as much as the State government would cost. People would wrangle over the question week in and week out, and they never would say quit. They would keep up the fight perpetually. I refer gentlemen to the experience that we had here a few years ago. I remember the condition of things then prevalent in many of the local subdivisions of the State. It was a pandemonium. It was a hell on earth, and I protest against a repetition of it. That was the result wherever this contest over local option was made. It was a scene of turmoil and strife-people neglecting their business and engaging in this political struggle. It was a fearful scene, and if we should adopt this section in a constitutional provision, this struggle would be repeated MR. TOWNSEND. Are you aware that gambling is prohibited by law? MR. CAPLES. Yes; it is attempted to be prohibited. MR. TOWNSEND. Are you aware that those places where there used to be open gambling and bands of music at the door are prohibited by law, and that the consequence is that that evil is very much restricted? Legislation upon that is no different from any other question, andMR. CAPLES. This is my speech, and I propose to proceed. I will say to the gentleman that there is more gambling now than there was at the time he refers to. There is five times as much. Who will deny it? Why the Stock Boards in San Francisco are the source of a greater amount of gambling and a wider field for gambling operations than all the poker games of 'forty-nine and 'fifty. You cannot prevent it by legislation. And I will inform the gentleman that in many places in this State there are gambling games-it is true the bands of music are not there-as flourishing as in the days of 'forty-nine. They are not conducted openly, but the gentleman knows where to go to find them. I will venture the assertion that every gentleman on this floor can find a place if they desire to do so, and I have no doubt that some have found it. [Laughter.] I am and have been, so far as I am individually concerned, although it is not perhaps worth stating here, opposed to every form and shape of gambling. I do not desire to blow my own horn, gentlemen, but the fact is I have been a consistent enemy of this kind of life always, and have suffered by it through others, and have every reason to desire a high standard of public morality, because it conduces to the public welfare in more ways than one; but what we have got to do here is to accept the condition of mankind as we find it and attempt no impossibility. It is our duty to accept the condition of things we find and provide the best remedies that we can, and not attempt to do that which it is beyond our power to do. I assert that it is beyond the power of this Convention, or any law-making power, to secure public morality by statute enactment. MR. KENNY. I move the previous question. REMARKS OF MR. BROWN. MR. BROWN. Mr. Chairman: I did not propose saying anything upon this subject. When there was a liquor subject up a few days ago, and the idea presented with regard to having pure liquors, I then also spoke upon this subject, which I had not intended to do, and thought at that time that a purification of liquors was a matter worthy of the attention and high appreciation of this committee. Now, in this case I look upon the wishes of a number of the citizens from different parts of this State, and they are far more numerous than the petitioners from Stanislaus County, and they demand the attention and consideration of this body upon this very important question. We know that there has been in this State an effort in the line of local option, and we know that citizens of positions of this State have wanted to carry out their wishes in their respective localities, and could not do so. Why? Because they had no constitutional sanction for it. There was a deficiency. They lacked foundation in the organic law of the State. In different parts of the State they have conceived that the sale of ardent spirits has been a detriment to them, great damage to them, and they have desired that this Convention should give them an opportunity in these respective localities to prohibit the sale of liquors by a majority vote. Now, this committee, so far, has adopted the system, to a great extent, of local government, and if the people are to be allowed local government in other respects, why not in this? Is the evil less in this than in any other, that they shall be prohibited this right? Is it not an evil of some consequence? I am not going, upon the present occasion, to perpetrate upon you, in any form, a temperance lecture, but I am going to advocate the rights of the people in various portions of the State to be heard by this body, when they demand that they have a right to do as they please in this matter by a majority vote. It is said by the gentleman last upon the floor that you cannot legislate morality into the people. You cannot do this. If this proves anything, it proves too much. We might, upon the same principle, say that there shall be no laws against stealing, forgery, or any other crime, because upon the broad principle you cannot legislate morality into the people. The idea is to have it in the power of any local subdivision of the county, if they deem this to be an evil, to legislate against it. To take the broad position, that you cannot legislate morality into the people, is assuming too much. You might as well say that because there are laws against stealing and stealing still goes on, that you would do away with all laws against stealing. It assumes too much. I am satisfied that every member of this body must see the utter fallacy of the gentleman's position on this subject. But there is nothing more demanded and nothing more desired by the people than to do as they wish in their respective townships and localities. It is a reasonable request. It has been granted in different places. It will ot conflict with the people elsewhere, and I cannot see why there ould be anything of a factious opposition. It was contended all the ime that the matter would load down the Constitution, as though it was camel and this was the last straw, and would break its back. I say it will not, because it does not affect others. It does not affect any locality xcept those who vote in favor of it. I do contend that it merits the rous consideration of this body, and some action upon the subject, and hope that the section will not be stricken out. ricken out. REMARKS OF MR. BARTON. around or removing the objections made by the Supreme Court to the local option law which was once passed in this State. That objection was upon two grounds: first, that the Legislature had no power to delegate its legislative authority; and in the next place, that township government, which was provided for under the Constitution, had not been by the Legislature carried into effect, and that the Constitution was not self-executing, and therefore there was no township organization in the sense of the Constitution, and consequently that the local option laws were void, there being no local legislature such as was contemplated or provided in the Act called the Local Option Act. Now, the Supreme Court, after stating their objections, decided that if township organizations were created, or local legislatures, as they called them, and the power was delegated to them of regulating tippling, or the selling or dealing in intoxicating liquors, that that would be constitutional. I will read from the syllabus of that decision: MR. BARTON. Mr. Chairman: I hope that this section will not be The argument of my friend, Dr. Caples, if it proves anything, proves that we should stop short in civilization and go back into arbarism. The idea of a gentleman upon the floor of this Convention assuming the position that we have not got the right to legislate upon he subject of morality in the direction that the people desire, simply "When a system of town governments shall have been established by because laws that have been passed to restrain evils have not prevented the Legislature, and when local town legislatures shall have been organthem entirely! The idea that we have not the right to give to the peo-ized under that system, the Legislature may confide to such local legisple in any locality the right to say what is a nuisance and what is not, latures the right to make local rules, but it cannot delegate to the people is wrong and contrary to the principles of our Government! It is living within certain territorial limits, but who have no distinctive undemocratic. The principles of this Government are broad and liberal, political character or governmental organization, the power to make and upon that basis this Government must stand or fall. To give to the laws." Legislature the power to say to the people of a district, you can abate a Now, sir, would it not be sufficient, even admitting or supposing we nuisance, is something that the people of this State demand. It is not have not sufficiently conferred upon the Legislature this power-would prohibitory, if you please, as the doctor would have us believe. It is it not be sufficient, instead of compelling the Legislature to enact laws smply giving the people the right to say who shall or who shall not of this kind, to declare the general principle that they should have the have a right to conduct this business, thereby compelling them to give power, when they do create these townships or local organizations-that urity for their good behavior. Is it not right that the Legislature of whenever they have done that they should have the power to delegate the people of California should have the right to authorize the people to them this general power which is spoken of here? Would it not be comshut up these places where, with two ounces of poison and a gallon of prehended under the general power to "make and enforce within its limits water, they manufacture the deadly compounds they sell over their bar? all such local, police, sanitary, and other regulations as are not in conflict Whenever I hear one of the sages of this society get up and say that this with general laws," and laws generally for the regulation of their is wrong, I have been constrained to the belief that this great reform domestic concerns? It seems to me that that is sufficient without flying movement never will get an abiding place in the minds of the people directly in the face of that business by declaring that the Legislature until this Bourbon class is in existence no more. Progress in our society shall, ex propria vigore, go ahead and impose it upon the people of this is marked, and the old Bourbon ideas must stand back and give place to State-that it is being made a separate issue. I do not think the Legisthe ideas of progress. We claim the right as local optionists and tem- lature should be tied up by the people in that way-a cast iron, inflexiperance people of this State to legislate upon this great question. ble obligation upon the Legislature, whether or no, to enact such a law. MR. TOWNSEND. I think the gentleman voted for a great many such measures. MR. BARBOUR. I have voted for a number of measures looking to local government, and I have no objection to it now, provided it is necessary. There is the decision of our Supreme Court. That decision is, that when you have township organizations then you can delegate this power. How can you do so except there is a city, a regular incorHow can you say that a certain portion of a county not organized, having no local legislature, how can you say that they can go ahead and make laws? I am satisfied that if you do this you have got to go the whole hog and make it compulsory upon the Legislature to provide township organizations. It seems to me that it is already provided for. The Supreme Court objection has been met by our provision number twelve of the report of the Committee on City, County, and Township Organization, and other provisions in this Constitution. I remember a few years ago when the subject of local option was being championed by a very few men upon the floor of this house, that in the short space of eight hours the whisky men and whisky dealers of this State secured and raised a corrupting fund of one hundred and fortyeight thousand dollars, to defeat that measure. But then, as it is now, there was a band of gentlemen upon the floor of the Legislature that were in the interest of the people and humanity, and, sir, that bill became a law against and in spite of all this ill-gotten money. The corrupting|porated city, with its regular Board of Supervisors-its local legislature? fund could not be used. The lobby found themselves in the position of men without a place to invest it. The bill went to the Governor, was signed, and became a law, and the Supreme Court-and I desire to speak kindly of them as possible-decided that law to be unconstitutional; that a district or township, in their local authority and power, based upon a democratic idea of government, had no right to do this thing. But, by way of stultification, they went into Shasta County and there they decided that the local authorities of a certain township had the right to do this very same thing that the people of Alameda were denied. Tell me that the Legislature of this State has not got the right to pass a law that will protect my boys and yours from the vices, from the corruption, and from the sins that beset them upon every hand. I warn you, now, that this is false legislation, and I appeal to you, now, as honest men, in behalf of my boys and yours, and the rising generation generally throughout the State, to stand up manfully and weight down this Constitution with one of the grandest jewels that ever emanated from a legislative body. MR. MCFARLAND. Mr. Chairman: I am opposed to the section and in favor of striking it out for various reasons. I will only give one or two. In the first place, I am afraid it will load down the Constitution, and injure its chances of adoption [laughter]; and in the second place, I have learned that quite a number of prominent gentlemen, connected with the interests of the corporations of the State, are in favor of the proposition. I think these two reasons should be sufficient to defeat it. [Laughter.] MR. MARTIN, of Santa Cruz. Mr. Chairman: Some years ago I was very much in favor of local option, but having seen the workings of it once in my own county, and throughout the State, I hope it will be defeated; therefore I am in favor of striking it out. I look upon local option as a fraud. I am MR. RINGGOLD. Mr. Chairman: I am aware of who I shall offend by the position I take upon this question, but I care not for that. in favor of democracy, pure and simple, and if we divide the State into small territories, I do not see why we should not allow them to have jurisdiction on all sorts of questions. I do not suppose that it will work as the people anticipate, but I support the proposition on principle; consequently I hope it will not be stricken out. REMARKS OF MR. BARBOUR. MR. BARBOUR. Mr. Chairman: I have voted, sir, throughout this Convention in favor of local self-government, but I am not able to support the proposition on the Secretary's table, because it is not self-government, as I understand it; but it is made obligatory upon the Legislature by the use of the word "shall." The people of this State, as I understand it, once did, when the issue was presented to them as a direct issue, elect a Legislature in favor of local option laws. And they enacted a law which was declared by the Supreme Court unconstitutional. That decision is in the forty-eighth California Reports, in the case of ex parte Wall, and that decision of the Court proceeds upon two grounds. I suppose, of course, if the friends of local self-government wish to enact any thing in this Constitution, it would be for the purpose of getting REMARKS OF MR. KLEINE. guess. If a That MR. KLEINE. Mr. Chairman: This local option business seems to me-I guess it originated in the brains of a few fanatics, man wants to jump into the Sacramento who can prevent him? This local option law, according to the way I understand it, gives the business into the hands of a few. It takes away the liquor business from the small whisky shops and gives it into the hands of the large ones. is the way it works in Maine. They have a law against selling liquor, and you find just as many drunkards in the State of Maine as anywhere else. The man that wants it will have it. For my own part I never drink it at all. I never spend two bits. I don't smoke and I don't drink. I have no use for it. A gentleman can drink whisky if he wants whisky. If you close the whisky shops he goes to a bigger liquor shop and gets it. According to these local option laws, as I said before, it gives the business all to the wholesale dealers. The man that can afford to buy ten gallons, of course he will have his whisky, and how easy it is for a man to get his whisky at the wholesale liquor store. It is nothing but a crazy idea. I am opposed to it. I shall vote against it. MR. STEDMAN. May I ask you a question? You say you never drink or spend money for it. Didn't I have a drink with you in a saloon the other day? MR. KLEINE. Yes, you did. You did, sir; I don't deny that. I can drink myself, but I very seldom drink. I done it. I don't belong to any temperance society. I don't allow any man or any society to bind me. Although I never spend two bits for whisky, nor beer, nor wine, if I am thirsty, you give me the preference of a glass of water or a glass of beer, I always take the water. MR. TOWNSEND. Why are you working against your fellow laborers? Don't you know that many of them spend all their money for whisky when they might be getting rich? MR. KLEINE. If a man sees fit to spend his money in whisky it is his own look out. I know many men that do not drink whisky, and they spend their money with bad women. [Laughter.] Who is the most moral man? The man that spends his money with prostitutes or with whisky? [Laughter.] REMARKS OF MR. VACQUEREL. MR. VACQUEREL. Mr. Chairman: I have been handed here a little paper, signed with the grand seal. I should like to ask what kind of a religion it is. It seems to me that it is some kind of a religion or another. Now, section four of the Constitution of the State of California provides that "the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or prefereace, shall be forever allowed in this State." Now, if we legislate upon this local option we are certainly legislating for a certain class of religion, or a certain society, which is directly against the Constitution. Another thing, a gentleman on this floor has said that the Legislature had a right to protect his children and other people's children. Now, sir, if a father cannot protect his own child, I would like to know how the Legislature is going to do it? Why not pass a law then when the children come to be born, that they must come into world with nothing but virtues, and no vices at all? Are we to regenerate mankind? Can we stop a man from drinking if he wants to? Let everybody go according to his own conscience. He is the one that suffers for it if he makes an abuse of it. Why, in countries where there is no such law as that, where people are permitted to drink whenever they choose, those are the very countries where you see the least drunkards. I hope this section will be stricken MR. HOWARD, of Los Angeles. Mr. Chairman: I wish to move an amendment to strike out and insert. out. THE SECRETARY read: "Strike out all after the word 'section' down to the word enact,' and insert the words 'the city and township governments organized under the Constitution may." REMARKS OF MR. HOWARD. is upon those police regulations that either tend to corrupt, or destroy, or vitiate, or tend to elevate, cultivate, and purify the generations of society. I am acquainted with some of those localities to which my colleague referred, in the County of Los Angeles. I will state one instance briefly. A low, demoralized individual, right from the brothels, established a drinking saloon in the vicinity of our public school. By the introduction of sundry little games and inducements he enticed the boys in there. MR. WHITE. Is not this whole subject covered in section twelve, when it says that the local governments" shall make such local, police, sanitary, and other regulations as are not inconsistent with general laws?" MR. HOWARD. Will you vote, in the Convention, to sustain section twelve? MR. WHITE. I will vote to sustain section twelve. MR. WEST. I am of the opinion that section twelve does sustain the principle, and gives the authority, but I cannot permit this occasion to pass without expressing myself in favor of the right, power, and privilege of local communities to protect themselves against the crushing influence of the sale of intoxicating liquors, if they are disposed, by a majority vote to do so. In these instances to which I am referring, this nuisance becomes intolerable. In the case I refer to, it is said that a tidal wave struck this institution, and in the morning the saloon was found in a ravine near by, all broken to pieces. I hope we will not be compelled to depend upon these tidal waves to destroy these institutions in the future, but that the community may legally protect themselves against them. I hope the amendment will prevail. REMARKS OF MR. BIGGS. MR. BIGGS. Mr. Chairman: I have lived fifty odd years trying to be a citizen of morality and virtue. I have been taught that moral suasion was much better than coercion. I am opposed to the section. I think it is amply provided for. I MR. HOWARD. Mr. Chairman: I was elected here on a straight Democratic nomination. I stand here as a Democrat. The original definition of a democratic government-the Greek definition-was that it is a government by the people. Now, sir, propose that the people, locally, as we have repeatedly enacted here, shall govern in relation to this matter. The main objection to a local option law has always been that it was not supported by public sentiment. But if a majority of the MR. REYNOLDS. Will the gentleman allow a question? If the people of a city or township are in favor of the prohibition of this retail gentleman should discover a thief breaking into his store, and extracting trade or traffic, then it is sustained by public sentiment, and then I think money from his till, would he approach him with moral suasion, and it is proper that they should have a right to say whether this poison beg him, for the love of God and humanity's sake, not to take his shall be sold at every corner of a street or not. Now, nobody doubts-money; or would he take him by the throat, and pack him out? my friend from Sacramento knows very well, as a physician-that the MR. BIGGS. The gentleman might say that, if the moon were made Legislature has always, in most of the States, if not in this, and prac-of green cheese, it would be good to feed monkeys on. I am opposed to tically in this, exercised the right to regulate the sale of poison. Now, any legislative body saying what a man shall eat, drink, or wear. it is true, as I had occasion to say here the other day, that nine tenths of have grandchildren, and a number of them, and I undertake to say, it everything we drink in this State is a compound of poisons, mixed up is seldom you see one of them enter a saloon and take a drink. In my by the wholesale dealer. One of the largest manufacturers of wine in experience in life, I have noticed that, when this local option has this State told me, the other day, that the wines and all the other liquors been inforced, the result is, that people bought liquor from wholesale are adulterated in every hand through which they pass. That it is places, and the consequence was that they became beastly intoxicated, destroying the health of our people; that it is sending them to the pen- or else under the influence of liquor, whereas, if they had gone to a itentiary as well as to the insane asylum, is a notorious fact. I was saloon, they would have had no bad effect from it. In my travels reading the other day an English publication, in which extensive evi-throughout the east I have seen the effects of this local option, buying by dence was taken, and there was the evidence of the wife of an English the bottle full and carrying it in their pockets. I am ready to go hand in operator, who said that her only chance to get any of the money for the hand with every gentleman on the floor, upon the question of morality, support of the family, paid to her husband on Saturday night, was to go but it cannot be forced in this way; they will evade the law, they will with him to the paying-table, and accompany him home. She testified buy it by the bottlefull, they will drink it at home. Do you propose to that between the house of the paying-table and her own residence there force it upon every township organization to hold this election? You say were in one block five groceries; that she could get him by two, but you shall do thus and so. It is very expensive to hold these elections. when it come to get him by five, he spent all his money before he got MR. TOWNSEND. It is not proposed to force this upon a community. home. Now, everybody knows the misery of this thing; everybody Suppose a community says, by a majority vote, that they do not want knows its immoral tendency; everybody knows its effect upon the health these dens, that they do not want these saloons open for people to go in of the people. I think that it will preserve the public peace to have this at all times, or for boys to go in at any time. Why not permit them to matter disposed of by the local governments. I know there are two col- rule? onies in this State, founded by people who have churches and schools and libraries and societies, who do not want liquor sold in their place. Once or twice parties have attempted to set up groceries in these colonies, but the colonists notified them that they could not do it, and the fact is, that they were obliged to quit, for they saw at once that the moral atmosphere would be made too warm for them if they attempted to force these establishments upon them. This is likely to occur in many places, and-for instance, in the township in which that colony is located-why not allow it to say liquor shall not be sold here, or shall not be sold at retail, or to make such regulations as will protect the morals and health of the locality? On principle, it is certainly right, and I believe that the utility of it would be very great, for this habit of drinking, among our people, is produced by social feeling. A half dozen fellows get into a grocery; one treats, another treats, and another treats, out of pure good feeling, and the first thing they know, half of them have contracted habits of intemperance and habits of dissipation. It does strike me that it is a right thing to be done to leave it to the local governments to say whether this vice shall be perpetrated and perpetuated in their communities or not. MR. CAPLES. Would the gentleman permit a question? I desire to ask General Howard if his devotions to the principles of local selfgovernment would carry him to the extent of justifying the enactment of a code of blue laws for any city or township? MR. HOWARD, of Los Angeles. No, I would not prevent a gentleman from kissing his wife on Sunday, but I would prohibit him from making his brother drunk on any day. REMARKS OF MR. WEST. MR. BIGGS. Do you propose to force every community to take a vote upon that direct question? A gentleman has spoken about the Democratic principles. If he has been an old Bourbon Democrat he has lived a long time under the influence of that article. I am very sorry that there has been one hundred and forty-eight thousand dollars made up for a lobby to defeat a local option bill. The gentleman who discloses that information was better posted upon that question than any other gentleman on this floor. He ought to know. He says it was one hundred and forty-eight thousand dollars. Well, sir, there is a large number of the people of this State opposed to local option. Another gentleman made a statement here that he was elected directly upon local option. If that question was at issue before the people I know nothing of it. I heard nothing of it in any portion of the State that I visited at the time. I do think it is unnecessary. It is amply provided for in section twelve. We do not wish to interfere in every business. I am opposed to loading down this Constitution with useless and such worthless trash as this is. MR. STEDMAN. Mr. Chairman: I believe this matter has been suf- The committee refused to order the main question, on a division, by a vote of 35 ayes to 43 noes. MR. CAMPBELL. I have a small amendment that I desire to offer to the amendment of the gentleman from Los Angeles, Mr. Howard. I think he will accept it. THE SECRETARY read: "Amend the amendment so as to read as follows: The city or township governments organized under this Constitution may enact a law whereby the qualified electors of any county, town, city, or city and county, by a majority vote, from time to time, may determine whether the sale of intoxicating liquors shall be prohibited within the prescribed limits.' MR. WEST. Mr. Chairman: I hope the amendment offered by my colleague from Los Angeles will prevail. It certainly is correct in principle. It is sound in theory, and it is one of those cardinal principles that underly true democracy, that the people in every community, in their corporate or municipal character should be permitted to regulate their own affairs. From the commencement of the discussion upon city, county, and township organization, I have voted steadily, constantly, MR. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman: The only object is to strike out and uniformly in favor of local self government. Now, Mr. Chairman," voting precinct," and put in "county, town, city, or city and county," if there is any subject upon which local authority should be permitted which would be the designation. It does away with the voting preto be exercised, it is upon the protection of the morals of the youth; it cincts, and puts in the designation by which the City and County of San MR. HOWARD. I accept that amendment |