IN COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE. MR. BEERSTECHER. Mr. President, or Mr. Chairman: I desire to call the attention of the Committee of the Whole to a change that has been made in the printed copy of the amendment that I introduced this afternoon. There seems to have been a number of objections raised to the section, as it might require persons who had been naturalized and were citizens of the United States, and of the State, to take out the papers that are contemplated by the section. In line one of the section the words "persons of foreign birth," have been stricken out and the word "aliens" substituted. In line five the words "persons of foreign birth," have also been stricken out and the word "aliens" substituted, so that the section now reads: "All aliens, before engaging in any manner of employment, on their own account or for others, within this State, shall first procure a certificate of authority; such certificate shall be issued to any applicant of a race eligible to citizenship under the laws of the State, without cost, by any Court of record of the State. No alien shall engage or continue in any manner of employment in this State unless possessed of such certificate; nor shall any person, copartnership, company, or corporation, directly or indirectly, employ any alien within this State, unless such person possesses such certificate. The Legislature shall provide for punishment of violation of this section. Prosecutions shall be maintainable against both employers and employés. Each day's violation shall constitute a distinct offense." Now MR. INMAN. I want to understand it, because I am opposed to that. MR. BEERSTECHER. I am in favor of absolutely and unequivocally cutting off the power and privileges of any Mongolian of getting any character of employment in the State whatever. That is the only way that we can rid ourselves of the nuisance. I do not believe myself that we have the power to meet the Chinese at the threshold and prevent them from entering our State. I believe that they can come here. I believe that the power delegated to Congress to regulate commerce will land them in this State, and that the laws of Congress, and the powers delegated to Congress by the States, will protect them until they are landed, but the moment that they are upon the soil of California, the moment that they commingle and intermix with the people of this State, the moment that they become residents within the border of the State, that moment the power and the protection of the United States ceases. The powers vested in Congress, giving it power over commerce, foreign and between States, ceases when the Chinaman comes here and becomes a resident, and commingles with the people and engages in business in this State. The moment that national power ceases, the power of the State attaches, under the police regulations, and we can regulate their residence here. We can regulate their transaction of business here, under that police power which resides in the State, which is always reserved by the State, and which has never been given to the General Government, and never has been stolen by the General Government, as other powers have by the General Government. And I believe that if we have the right to regulate their employment by corporations, we have the right to regulate their employment by copartnerships, and by companies, and by individuals. At all events, I believe in drawing the section just as strong as it is possible to draw it. If this section went before the Courts, and an individual should say that his rights as a citizen of the United States, or of the State of California, had been infringed upon, because he is not allowed to employ whomsoever he pleases, then the Court will simply say that this provision of the Constitution is unconstitutional, as far as the Constitution of the United States is concerned. The Courts will simply say the section is a good and valid section, it has force and vigor in law, with the exception of what relates to preventing private individuals from employing Chinamen. They might say that it might be invalid, as relates to private companies employing Chinamen, but the section will be good as to everything else. Every Court is bound to give effect to every law just as far as it can give effect to the law, and a law is never totally wiped out if it can be preserved. But it might only be wiped out so far MR. STEDMAN. My point of order is that we are proceeding to as it endeavors to regulate the employment of Mongolians by private business without a quorum. Seventy-seven members constitute a quo-individuals. If we desire to draw provisions here in relation to the rum, either in Convention or in Committee of the Whole, and since the Chinese that are, beyond all doubt, beyond all possibility of a doubt, roll was called several members have left. Originally we had seventy-constitutional, then we had better not commence to draw them at all, six members when we went into Committee of the WholeMR. SHOEMAKER. His point of order should be takenMR. STEDMAN. The rules of the Convention MR. STEDMAN. I rise to a point of order. There is not a quorum present. Rule Fifty-six prescribes that the rules of the Convention shall be observed in Committee of the Whole. THE CHAIRMAN. Mr. Beerstecher has the floor. MR. LARKIN. The gentleman is stating his point of order. THE CHAIRMAN. Unless the gentleman will yield the floor you THE CHAIRMAN. The Chair will recognize the gentleman to raise his point of order. MR. TINNIN. I hope the Chair will enforce orderTHE CHAIRMAN. The gentlemen will please preserve order. The gentleman from San Francisco raises the point of order that there is no quorum present. The Chair recognized the point of order, and it will be in order to ascertain whether there is a quorum present by moving a call of the roll, or a motion that the committee rise. MR. BEERSTECHER. I rise to a point of order. There cannot be a motion made for the committee to rise while a member occupies the floor. And furthermore, when we went into Committee of the Whole, sir, there was a quorum present, and there is no official knowledge now but what that quorum is present, and a vote cannot be taken upon the subject until I yield the floor. because all of these inhibitions, perhaps, will rest under a doubt as to their constitutionality. And in such cases it will be necessary to take them before the Courts and to test them, and that is exactly what we are after. We desire to have them tested, and we desire to make a test case and ascertain what rights we have in the premises. If this section is to furnish a test case, well and good. If any other section is to furnish a test case, well and good. The Court will not wipe out the section because it goes too far, and as to other provisions the section will stand. I hope that this section will be adopted instead of section two, because it not only prohibits corporations, but goes way beyond corporations and embraces much more, and at the same time embraces corporations by its terms. REMARKS OF MR. LARKIN. MR. LARKIN. Mr. Chairman: As a member of the Committee on THE CHAIRMAN. The point of order is well taken. The Sergeant-Chinese, I have considered the propositions that are submitted by that at-Arms will preserve order. committee, and I do not wish to devote my time this evening to a lengthy speech, but simply to give my views on the proposition. I MR. STEDMAN. The Chair recognized me- THE CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognized you to make a point of shall support the first section as reported by that committee to this Con order. REMARKS OF MR. BEERSTECHER. vention. I believe in that first section there are rights, and there will be powers conferred on the Legislature MR. BEERSTECHER. I will state that the first section has gone over until to-morrow. MR. LARKIN. I shall support the second section, unless something better is offered than has been already. I cannot support the proposition of Mr. Beerstecher. It goes farther than I propose to go in this matter. I MR. BEERSTECHER. Mr. Chairman: As I was stating, the objection to the section as introduced, which objection was privately stated to me by a number of delegates, was that the original section would compel persons who had become naturalized under the laws of the United States, persons who were citizens of the State-no matter whether they were citizens one day, or whether they were citizens twenty-five years, if resi-propose to go as far as I believe is consistent; as far as the people of this dents of this State, but being persons of foreign birth-to procure these certificates contemplated in the section. The section now has been altered and so changed that it will not require any but aliens to make this application, and when a person has become a citizen of the United States, and a citizen of the State of California, it will not be necessary for them to go before a Court and get this certificate of authority to prosecute business in the State; and, therefore, the objection that has been urged against the section has been removed. Now, as regards this section, it is immaterial to me whether this particular section or whether a section of like import be adopted, but the section, in reality, goes much farther than section two, as reported by the committee. Section two, as reported by the committee, has exclusive reference to corporations, and to corporations alone. It says: State demand; as far as the Courts will sustain us in this matter. I do not propose, by any vote of mine upon this question, to load this Constitution so that it shall be objectionable to the better portion of the people of this State that desire to rid themselves of this nuisance. When we apply the provision to corporations, it occupies an entirely different position from what it would applied to private individuals. Under this Constitution and under the laws we have power to regulate corporations; we have power to wipe the last one of them from the State, and require business to be conducted by copartners; we have that right both in the Constitution and in the laws. We have the right to say that they shall not employ Chinese coolies; that the public good demands that the preference be given to persons eligible to become citizens of the United States. I do not propose to enter into the constitutional right that the State has in her Constitution to say that a citizen of "Any corporation incorporated by or under the laws of this State, the United States shall not engage in any business and employ who he or doing business in this State, shall forfeit its franchises and all legal pleases. I believe the Constitution of the United States would declare rights thereunder, if it ever employs, in any capacity whatever, for- that a provision of that kind in our Constitution would be null and eigners who are not eligible to become citizens of the United States void. I believe that any citizen in the United States has a right to under the laws of Congress. This section shall be enforced by appro-engage in any business, whether the Constitution of the United States priate legislation." was a check upon that power or not. That right, I believe, belongs to MR. INMAN. Do you propose to prohibit an individual from employ- an American citizen; and I do not believe that your Constitution ing Chinamen? MR. BEERSTECHER. Yes. should be attempted to infringe upon it. If we place in this Constitu|tion provisions that the Supreme Court will not sustain, just so far we weaken our position before the people of the world. Let us put nothing in there but what the Supreme Court will sustain. Then we have taken a step forward to accomplish the purpose which we design. To go farther than that shows weakness, a wild, rabid desire to do something, without any definite reason for what we are going to do, or without caring for the result of our acts. Section three is again a clear proposition. In the Constitution of this State we would certainly have the power to-day that "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." We have the right, I believe, to place that article in the Constitution. I believe it should be placed there. That and the provision before is all I am going to vote for in this Convention. That is as far as I will go on this question. I believe that is as far as the people of this State will sustain us in going, and anything farther than that will load the Constitution before the people of this State, which I do not propose to do. ately leave the chair of the committee, and the Speaker ro THE CHAIRMAN. The Chair calls the gentleman to "All aliens, before engaging in any manner of employm own account, or for others, within this State, shall first pro cate of authority. Such certificate shall be issued to any a race eligible to citizenship under the laws of the State, Section five is the most extreme section offered in this report. "No by any Court of record of the State. No person of foreig person who is not eligible to become a citizen of the United States shall engage or continue in any manner of employment in this be permitted to settle in this State after the adoption of this Constitu- possessed of such certificate; nor shall any person, coparti tion." That covers the question of settlement in this State to any per-pany, or corporation, directly or indirectly, employ any son ineligible to become a citizen of the United States. That section has this State, unless such person possess such certificate. The a precedent in this Convention of Illinois that existed up to some fifteen shall provide for punishment of violations of this sectio years, when the Fifteenth Amendment was adopted, prohibiting mulat- tions shall be maintainable against both employers an toes and negroes settling in that State. The State of Indiana prohibited Each day's violation shall constitute a distinct offense." negroes and imposed a fine upon them, which was used for the purpose MR. ROLFE. Mr. Chairman: I think it would be u of taking those from the State that were found in the State. That pro- take a vote on any of these amendments when the house is vision in the Constitution had been sustained by the Supreme Court as if there is a quorum. In the amendment offered by th applicable to the negroes, and it certainly would sustain it as applicable from San Francisco, Mr. Beerstecher, I see in line four, whe to persons ineligible to become citizens of the United States. These pro- this rule of granting certificates, that he refers to persons el visions, sections one, three, and five, are all of this report I desire to sup-zenship under the laws of the State. I do not know why port, and as far as I believe we should go. Powers enough will be the laws of the State instead of the laws of the United Sta conceded to the Legislature in these provisions, and I believe will be under the impression that we can exclude a person from determine the question. I desire to see us clearly and squarely stand upon zen of this State, although he may be a citizen of the U these provisions that I think will be effective, and that the people of the All these other amendments proposed by the committee rel State will ratify in the Constitution. who are ineligible to become citizens of the United States, to persons ineligible to become citizens under the laws of t he is under an impression that the State of California, State, can exclude from citizenship of the State a citizen o States, I think that he is laboring under a wrong impre that, I refer to the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constit MR. STEDMAN. There not being a quorum present, I move that the committee now rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again. There are less than sixty members present. MR. TINNIN. I hope that this motion will be voted down. MR. CONDON. I move you, sir, that that motion be laid on the table. United States, which reads: THE CHAIRMAN. The Chair will put the original motion. MR. STEDMAN. I would like the announcement of the vote. THE CHAIRMAN. The motion is lost. MR. STEDMAN. I appeal from the decision of the Chair. "SECTION 1. All persons born or naturalized in the U and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall mal any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities o of the United States, nor shall any State deprive any p liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to within its jurisdiction, the equal protection of the law." Now, when the Chinaman can become a citizen under the MR. WATERS. I move that the gentleman have indefinite leave of United States, why, certainly, he is eligible to citizenship un absence. MR. STEDMAN. I appeal from the decision of the Chair. MR. WELLIN. The decision of the Chair cannot be appealed from on a question of the vote of the house. The gentleman is entirely out of order. I don't know what is the matter of him to-night. I move that he be granted one year's leave of absence. MR. STEDMAN. I want to say something more. There are two committees in session; one in room fifty-three, and one in the Senate Chamber, which is contrary to the rules of this house. MR. TINNIN. I move that the gentleman be appointed a committee of one to bring in those members. MR. WATERS. I rise for information. There has just been a question raised, and I would like to know whether there is a quorum present or not. I think I am entitled to the information. THE CHAIRMAN. There are sixty-four members, according to the count. MR. WATERS. Now, Mr. Chairman THE CHAIRMAN. The Chair rules that there is a quorum present. MR. WATERS. I do not think that this house should proceed if there is not a quorum present. If there is a quorum present, all well and good. MR. HOWARD. There is nothing before the committee. I raise that point of order. THE CHAIRMAN. The point of order is well taken. MR. WATERS. I will proceed in order, if the Chair will permit. THE CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is not speaking to anything before the committee. of the State of California, because if the State of California s law to the contrary it would be invalid. Another objecti this section is, that it would be a great inducement for ever in the State, of whom very few now want to become citizen citizens of the United States for the purpose of availing them Fourteenth Amendment. Therefore, I think that much o man's amendment as refers to a citizenship under the laws is a nullity. I would like to see it otherwise. I wish wel here to exclude the Chinaman from citizenship under the State, but under the Constitution of the United States cannot. MR. AYERS. Would it be in order to offer an amendme THE CHAIRMAN. Not at this present time. MR. AYERS. Mr. Chairman: It might get the committ snarl. It is well known that the principal objection to the of the gentleman from San Francisco is that it interferes wi of American citizens to employ whom they see fit. My a think would get around that objection. I would provide Chinaman residing in this State be required to take out a li izing him to procure employment of any kind in this State ing the Legislature to fix penalties for the violation of Under that authority the Legislature could pass a law re each Chinaman should take out a license before he could b MR. MILLER. Do you propose to require them to p licenses? MR. AYERS. Not in the Constitution. Let the Legislat MR. MILLER. The Supreme Court has decided that all that sort are unconstitutional. Our Supreme Court so de State. MR. WATERS. I would like to read section one thousand nine hun-of dred and ninety-five MR. HOWARD. I rise to a question of order. We are not here to listen to the reading of the Pentateuch. THE CHAIRMAN. The Chair has decided that the point of order is well taken. But the gentleman asks leave. With the permission of the house [Cries of "Read," "read."] MR. TINNIN. What does he want to read? MR. WATERS. Section one thousand nine hundred and ninety-five of Cushing's Law and Practice of Legislative Assemblies reads as follows: "A committee of the whole house, consisting of all the members. The MR. AYERS. They decided the mining taxes unconsti they decided it under the old Constitution. There was no the Constitution authorizing the tax. If we should here au tax it would hold before the Supreme Court. MR. MILLER. The case I refer to was tried in the Cire San Francisco two years ago. MR. TINNIN. It was the case MR. VAN DYKE. The case of the United States vs. Jac MR. GRACE. If we submit anything to the people and it, and say it shall be the law, if this is a republican govern have a republican form of government, and the majority ru . that each State has equal rights, and have the right to regulate their own local affairs. I do not acknowledge the right of secession and never did. But I hold that one State has as much right as another. No State is bound to put up with an institution that is opposed to the advancement and prosperity of the State. THE CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment to the amendinent, offered by Mr. Shoemaker. The Secretary will read it. THE SECRETARY read: "The Legislature shall, and it is hereby made the imperative duty of the Legislative Department of the Government of the State of California, to enact such laws as shall prevent any alien who is a subject of the Emperor of China, from being employed within this State by any corporation incorporated or doing business under the laws of this State." MR. BEERSTECHER. Mr. Chairman: I do not accept that amendment to my section. I am opposed to it. I know it is an amendment to my section, and I am opposed to it, because it is a repetition. It goes on and repeats. I have already said in my section that no person, copartnership, or corporation shall employ any one unless they possess a license. Now, upon this it is desired to tack this addition-in effect a repetition. It says "by any corporation incorporated or doing business under the laws of this State." Therefore, a foreign corporation, incorporated by Nevada, or by the State of Nevada, could employ Chinamen. We do not want to give any foreign corporations doing business in this State the privilege of doing what our own corporations cannot do. It is a favoritism towards foreign corporations. In answer to the gentleman from Los Angeles, Mr. Ayers, I would say, that the very object of making these permits or licenses gratis, that a man can get them free, and the Court must give them, would avoid the decisions in this State and the decisions of the Supreme Court, in relation to making men pay for these privileges. MR. LARKIN How about men in the County of San Bernardino, for instance, who live several hundred miles from the county seat? They cannot go there to get these permits. their coming here that is sufficient, and we all agree upon that. But for the Legislature or any individual to say what kind of machinery you can use, or what kind of help you can hire, is certainly unconstitutional and uncalled for. I cannot see the good sense in putting anything in the Constitution that will be annulled. Gentlemen talk about wages in this country being so low. I can remember, years ago, when I hired men for a dollar a day. I pay forty and forty-five dollars a month to-day. You cannot get a Chinaman for less than thirty dollars a month. There is no State in the Union pays so much wages. There is no State in the Union so prosperous. You talk about the people of this State suffering. You will find that if there is suffering it is on account of the whisky mills. Nineteen twentieths of these men are men who spend their earnings in the whisky shops. The whisky mills are ten times worse than the Chinamen. If you will put the whisky mills out of the country, I promise you I will not employ a Chinaman. My farm shall lie idle for ten years, and I will try and get along without it. I am opposed to the whole thing. I do not see any sense to it. MR. GRACE. Are you opposed to saloons being allowed to sell whisky? Are you opposed to that? MR. INMAN. I think so. MR. GRACE. Then he has nullified the laws of the United States. The United States issues them licenses. That is nullification. It is nullifying the laws of the United States, and I am opposed to it. SPEECH OF MR. WILSON. MR. WILSON, of Tehama. Mr. Chairman: There were no Chinese here in eighteen hundred and forty-nine-nothing but white people. I think it was in fifty-one or fifty-two that the first Chinaman came to this country. But they came; they went to work in our kitchens, and wherever they could get anything to do. They would work for five dollars a month until they learned the routine work, and then they would call for more wages. They have gradually insinuated themselves into almost every avenue of labor; they planted out orchards, and beryou find them everywhere. I have heard men say they would not employ Irishmen because they are given to strikes. Well, you hire a Chinaman and pay him five dollars a week, and he will steal another five dollars. He will carry off your sugar, and coffee, little at a time, so that you cannot notice it. They are the worst set of people that ever disgraced the earth. You hire one of them in your kitchen, and you will find he has half a dozen cousins to support. That is my experience with them. They are no benefit to the country; they bring no business to the stores. They buy nothing here, and they are a disgrace to our State, and ought to be got rid of, and I am in favor of the report of the committee. MR. BEERSTECHER. They can get them from any Court of record in the State of California. He could get them in any town that heries, and vegetables; they worked themselves into the mines and now would pass through. would say to the gentleman, if you are going to make it so very easy, if nobody is to be troubled in the matter of getting rid of the Chinese, if no person is going to sweat in this business, then we will never do anything. MR. LARKIN. In those large counties it will be hard on persons who will have to go fifty or one hundred miles even to get a permit to work one day. MR. BEERSTECHER. I would state to the gentleman that undoubt edly a man would certainly, in his travels, come to some place where there is a Court of record, and he could get his certificate there. He could get it from the Clerk of the Court in any town that he would pass through. A man could get it in San Francisco, and it would be good for his lifetime, all over the State. The trouble is, if we are not going to put anybody to any inconvenience, not going to trouble anybody, we will never do anything. For my part I am willing to go before a Court every year and spend half a day for the next ten years, if I can rid the State from the curse of the Chinese nuisance. [Applause.] THE CHAIRMAN. The gentlemen will preserve order. MR. AYERS. Mr. Chairman: I will introduce my amendment at the proper time for the purpose of bringing it under debate. The decision, so far as the license goes, was never before the Supreme Court of the United States. There is a line of decisions which have been sustained, and I think, on debate, by consulting the authorities, it will be found that we have the power. At the proper time I will introduce my amendment. MR. INMAN. Mr. Chairman: I hope that these two amendments will be voted down. I, for one, am opposed to stripping any citizen of his rights. The gentleman seems to think it would be all right. Probably it would be all right for him in the City of San Francisco, but in the country to say that a man must not hire Chinese to help in harvest would not do. It certainly would be unconstitutional. The only thing is to restrict their coming here, if it is possible to do so, and I will go just as far as the gentleman to do that. That would only be done under the police and sanitary law. The gentleman, Mr. Grace, talks pretty good secession doctrine. I agree that what is good in one State is good in another, but I object to secession and nullification. MR. GRACE. How do they do where they have no Chinamen? You don't want to go to the county seat to get a laborer to work for you. How do they do in other countries? How do they do where they have no Chinamen? MR. INMAN. Two years ago the farmers began to harvest at two dollars a day; the men asked three dollars, they gave it; the men asked four dollars, they gave it; the men asked five dollars, and they would not pay it. They were compelled to hire Chinamen. it. MR. GRACE. And you hired Chinamen? MR. INMAN. No, sir, I did not; but I deny that any man has the right to say what kind of machinery I shall use, or what kind of help I shall employ. I employ any help that is available, if I am forced to do MR. GRACE. I say that the Chinese must go, all of them, out of the country-black, white, old and young, Chinamen born, and native. I want to get rid of them. There plenty of help. There is no trouble about getting help. I would help the gentleman through harvest myself, rather than that he should employ Chinamen. [Applause.] THE CHAIRMAN. The Sergeant-at-Arms, at the next demonstration of that kind, will clear the galleries. MR. INMAN. I do not employ any Chinamen on the farm. I am forced to do it in our house, because we cannot get any other help in the house. But I know other gentlemen who do employ Chinamen on their farms. They are compelled to employ this help or leave their farms uncultivated. No gentleman wants his capital to lie idle. If you stop SPEECH OF MR. LINDOW. MR. LINDOW. Mr. Chairman: There is only three points in this Convention that ought to be taken up and discussed and voted on. [Cries of "Louder!" "louder!"] If the gentleman can't hear well he better get up and go out. [Laughter.] The principal thing was the corporations, taxation, and Chinese. The cry was all over the country that the Chinaman was a nuisance. That is the cry all over the country. ["Louder!" "louder!"] I wish that man would go out of the hall. [Laughter.] Mr. President, it is well understood that the principal thing been here now is this provision that ought to be put in force on the Chinese. Even if it does not come within the boundary and limits of the United States Government, let them test the thing in the Supreme Court, and then let them decide if we are wrong or right. That is the way it ought to work. If we don't do something besides talk, we might as well let the Chinese question bes It is a growing evil over the whole United States, and a crying evil in the State of California. Now, as my friend Beerstecher makes remark, I would like to see these men rise up and give us their views, so as to find out who are for the Chinese and who are against it. We like to see them gentlemen stand up and discuss the whole law of the United States, and discuss the law of the State of California, so we know when we are right and when we are wrong. That gives us an idea. My friend Beerstecher raised them up-woke them up on this side of the house. One gentleman said he employed Chinamen. I could not blame him; he only looked to his own interest. He don't look for the generation that is coming. So long as I live here my few years I can get along without troubling me about the Chinese. But I am looking for the stock that I am raising. They hire out for a dollar a day, and they say we can live for a dollar a day, and we have no right to have any children. That is what they say. That is what's against us. They can't deny it. They done it. Of course money does it all. That's where it comes in. If the poor man had as much money as the rich man, nobody would want to work. It is only for money we work, and if we cut wages down so he can only just keep his mouth open, he might as well go back. We ought to give him a chance and respect him, and he will respect his employer. But as you cut wages down he don't respect him any more, and he finds the Chinaman in his place. So he sees right away that he is below the Chinaman; and there is gentlemen here who tells us that Chinamen is better than white men. I tell them the people don't think so. The Chinaman suits some people better than white men. Why? Because they can use him to cook and do chamber work, when another man would not do it. If he goes to a house he don't want to do chamber work. And that is where the whole question comes in. We want to get rid of this curse. We want the Chinaman away, and give a man a fair day's pay for a fair day's work, and then we won't have any tramps. If a man comes around and wants a job, the farmer, says he, "I have a lot of Chinamen ;" and the man, says he, "I cannot starve, I will work for the same wages." "Well," says he, "you eat too much. You eat too much." He cannot get work for his grub; he cannot get work because he eats too much. Now, I can't see why the whole learned gentlemen are opposed to this concern, when the cry is all over the State that the people want to get rid of these Chinamen. I would not stand up here if I didn't feel it. We want to put something in the United States Courts to test it; and if they want the Chinamen, they can have them all. We want to do it peaceably if we can, or the worst will come. That is where it is. But here we are assembled to make a Constitution, and we ought to try peaceably, and the worst can come afterwards, if we can't do any better. If we go a little beyond, don't mind it. Let the United States test it, and then we will see how the United States stands. That is how it is. SPEECH OF MR. HERRINGTON. ADJOURNMENT. MR. TINNIN. I move to adjourn. And, at eight o'clock and fifty minutes P. M., the Convention stood adjourned until to-morrow, at nine o'clock and thirty minutes A. M. SEVENTY-FIFTH DAY. SACRAMENTO, Wednesday, December 11th, 1878. MR. HERRINGTON. Mr. Chairman: It is seldom that I oppose measures introduced by my friend from San Francisco, Mr. Beerstecher, for I have almost always found him right, and almost always working for the right. I find, however, in this provision, as presented by him, one object sought to be accomplished, and that is to prevent aliens who cannot become Andrews, citizens of the United States from being employed. The means that are Ayers, employed by this provision to accomplish this result is to compel those Barbour, who may become citizens of the United States to take out certificates Barnes, before they will be permitted to obtain employment, to which I object. Barry, I say the results contemplated can be reached more directly, and that is Beerstecher, why I oppose it. The principle contained we all agree to. We do not desire Belcher, that race to obtain employment here. But I do submit that the result Bell, can be more directly reached by getting directly at the persons them- Blackmer, selves, without calling upon those who may have the right to be Boucher, employed by us, without compelling them to take the trouble to obtain Brown, these certificates. Now I will read this section, as amended by the Burt, author: Caples, Dean, Farrell, Finney, Garvey, Laine, Lampson, Shafter, Shurtleff, Smith, of 4th District, Smith, of San Francisco, Stedman, Swenson, Mansfield, Swing, Martin, of Alameda, Terry, Martin, of Santa Cruz, Thompson, "SEC. 2. All aliens, before engaging in any manner of employment, Casserly, on their own account or for others, within this State, shall first procure Chapman, a certificate of authority. Such certificate shall be issued to any appli-Charles, cant of a race, and none other, eligible to citizenship under the laws of Condon, the State, without cost, by any Court of record of the State. No alien Cross, shall engage or continue in any manner of employment in this State Crouch, unless possessed of such certificate. Nor shall any person, copartner- Davis, ship, company, or corporation, directly or indirectly, employ any alien within this State, unless such person possess such certificate. The Legislature shall provide for punishment of violations of this section. Prosecutions shall be maintainable against both employers and employés. Each day's violation shall constitute a distinct offense." Now it makes very little difference whether it is the law of this State, or the law of the United States. Now this first clause is what I object to. I say the distinction is so small that it is useless to put this extra trouble upon those who may be entitled to become citizens. For that reason, if for no other, I am opposed to this amendment, because it attempts to do indirectly what we might as well do directly. MR. BEERSTECHER. With the gentleman's permission I would like to inquire whether he has got anything better to offer. MR. HERRINGTON. I propose to offer some assistance in this matter if I can. I want to make it as acceptable as possible, as free from objections as possible, and as strong and effective as possible. So far as this first clause is concerned, it can be reached more directly. It can be reached directly by a proposition, to the effect that no person shall enter into any manner of employment who is not capable of becoming a citizen of the United States. It is not necessary to compel all foreigners to take out certificates, because we can as well do it directly. The next clause: The Legislature shall provide punishment for a violation of this section." It is just as well to have it apply directly to the persons who are prohibited from engaging in these vocations. I say if we have the power to make these provisions with reference to the procuring of licenses, we have the power to prevent these persons from engaging in these employments, who cannot obtain certificates. Barton, And if we have the power, let us proceed directly. We cannot deceive Berry, anybody as to the intention of a provision of this kind, and if it will Biggs, stand the test in one case it will in another. Why compel these persons Boggs, who are entitled to citizenship to go to the trouble of obtaining certifi- Campbell, cates, before they can be permitted to engage in these employments. Cowden, Now I think I have made myself understood. It seems plain to my mind, and if I have not made myself understood, it is simply because there is no language to express it. If it is necessary I will repeat it again. I say that the distinction is so marked between the classes of persons that there is no need of this circumlocution. It will not make it any more binding, or any stronger, or any more legal. Let it operate directly upon those persons who may not become citizens of the United States. It is wrong to put this hardship upon those who are entitled to citizenship. It is unnecessary to bring them in at all. It is unnecessary to put them to the trouble. If we have the power to prevent the Chinese from obtaining employment indirectly, we have the power to do it directly. Anything we can do indirectly we can do directly. Let us put in the Constitution in such a shape that we will know pre-ber of mechanics and others, citizens of California, asking that provision MR. VAN DYKE presented the following petition, signed by a num cisely what we are acting upon. MR. BARRY. Mr. Chairman: As this is a matter of importance, upon which this Convention is nearly unanimous, feeling that something should be done, that the fullest powers of the State should be exercised, going to the very verge of our authority, and considering the fact that there is no quorum present, I move the committee now rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again. Carried. IN CONVENTION. THE PRESIDENT. Gentlemen: The Committee of the Whole have instructed me to report that they have had under consideration the report of the Committee on Chinese, have made progress, and ask leave to sit again. Harrison, Winans, Wyatt, Mr. President. measures proposed to be inserted in the Constitution, consequently you have not heard from the legal gentlemen on this floor. Another reason is, sir, if they should get up here and attempt to enlighten the Convention upon this subject, as I should be glad to hear them do, one of the first things you would hear from the other side of the house would be that they were employed by some corporation; that they were interested in some scheme or other. These things have been hurled at the honorable gentlemen so often, when they have been trying to instruct this Convention, that they feel inclined to be heard less in the future. It is not very pleasant when a gentleman gets up here, when he feels that he is acting from conscientious motives, when he knows he is telling the truth, to have gentlemen get up and impugn his motives on this floor, and say that he is talking in the interest of corporations. I don't believe there is a single legal gentleman on this floor that has any other clients save the people of the State of California, or any other interests than the interests of the people of California. They are paid by the people; and their object is to make a Constitution that will be acceptable to the people of the State, and one that will be an honor to their own names when they die. And, sir, I believe-or at least I fear-that there are some of these legal gentlemen occupying places on this floor, if the various propositions which are presented here, and this report, particularly, if they should be incorporated into the Constitution of this State, that they would debate seriously in their own minds whether this Constitution will receive their support. I do not believe, sir, that men are going to be so far forgetful of their duty or their interests, and their desire for the right, as to support the measures which are attempted to be incorporated into this Constitution. They MR. WYATT. I move that the resolution which I presented yester-know that we have no right-that the State has no right, notwithstandday morning be taken up. ing what has been said here-to incorporate such provisions as these into THE PRESIDENT. If there is no objection, it will be taken up. the organic law. Every legal mind, as well as every ordinary mind, Resolved, First-That we, the delegates of the people of the State of California, in Convention assembled, do most respectfully request our Senators and Representatives in Congress to use their influence to have passed a law reducing the price of the public lands in this State, within the limits of any railroad grants, to one dollar and twenty-five cents per acre, and to enable bona fide settlers upon said lands to homestead one hundred and sixty acres thereof-the lands belonging to the United States Government being the refuse or third rate lands, and mostly embraced within the foothills or mountains, and, in most instances, much subject to drought and scarcity of water, making it necessarily expensive to improve and utilize said lands. Resolved, Second-That we respectfully request our Senators and Representatives to use their influence to have passed a law restoring to preemption and homestead all the lands within the limits of forfeited railroad grants in this State, upon the same terms and conditions as before said grants were made. Resolved, Third-That a copy of these resolutions be sent to each of our Senators and Representatives in Congress. knows that this Convention has no right to set at defiance a solemn treaty, made by the powers of this government with any other foreign government. Gentlemen reason, and say we can under the police regulation. They can't do it under any regulation, police or otherwise, if it contravenes a treaty made by the Congress of the United States, and there is no use of talking about it. Now, gentlemen say this section means nothing, and is harmless. They can support it, but don't want to, because it means nothing. Now, Mr. President, it means considerable. It is enough in itself. I will read the first section, and you will see, by a careful reading, that it means a good deal: "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, from the burdens and evils arising from the presence of aliens who are or MR. WYATT. Mr. President: The first resolution takes the double may become vagrants, paupers, mendicants, criminals, or invalids minimum from the price of the even sections within the limits of rail-afflicted with contagious or infectious diseases, and aliens otherwise danroad grants where the railroads have been completed-where the condi-gerous or detrimental to the well-being or peace of the State, and to tions of the grants have been complied with. That is done because all impose conditions upon which such persons may reside in the State, and the better class of land has been taken, either by homestead or preemp-to provide the means and mode of their removal from the State upon tion, or purchase, within those limits, and there is nothing left except failure or refusal to comply with such conditions; provided, that nothing an inferior class of lands that are not worth the double minimum price, contained in the foregoing shall be construed to impair or limit the either as to purchase or taking eighty acres by homestead or preemption. power of the Legislature to pass such other police laws or regulations as The second resolution refers to all the lands included within the grants it may deem necessary.” heretofore made which have been forfeited by reason of the non-construction of the roads; in that case all the even sections being subject to the double minimum, and the odd sections not being in the market at all. The effect of this would be to restore all the lands within these forfeited grants to the market at a certain price-that is to say, one dollar and twenty-five cents per acre. All the lands which are surveyed certainly ought to be thrown open to homestead and preemption by citi-pose of compelling them to make a treaty. We made a treaty, and we zens of the United States. I believe it ought to be the policy of the government to make the lands as cheap as possible to the people, and not to increase the price, or make the quantity which a man may take less than one hundred and sixty acres. I think the resolutions are in accord with the popular sentiment of this State. I introduce them in compliance with very numerous petitions which I have received on the subject, and I hope they will be adopted. THE PRESIDENT. The question is on the adoption of the resolutions offered by the gentleman from Monterey, Mr. Wyatt. Adopted. CHINESE IMMIGRATION. MR. MILLER. Mr. President: I move that the Convention now resolve itself into Committee of the Whole, the President in the chair, for the purpose of further considering the report of the Committee on Chinese. Carried. IN COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE. Now, our people are doing business in China to-day by virtue of this treaty made between their government and our government. We went there and asked them to make it; they did not ask us. England went there, and we went there and asked to be permitted to trade with them; to have a commercial treaty, and open up commercial relations-and some of the authorities of Europe were willing to go to war for the purare availing ourselves to-day of the privileges and benefits of that treaty. Prior to the making of that treaty the United States were at a great disadvantage, because Germany at one time was about the only country that traded there. England and the United States also wanted to have this treaty; and I may as well remark, right here, that when that treaty was consummated San Francisco thought she had struck a great bonanza, and that it would make San Francisco one of the largest cities in the world. Now, after we made this treaty, we found that it did not work just exactly as we had anticipated, and now we want to do away with it. Gentlemen ought to have learned before now that it takes the same contracting power to do away with an agreement that it does to make it, and we cannot do away with that treaty here in any such way as this. Any lawyer knows we cannot do it; any thinking man ought to know we cannot do it. The contracting parties themseives are the ones that can do away with it. Now, that treaty has been read over to you by my colleague and others, and they say it only provides that the Chinese may come here for the purpose of residence and travel. If they are permitted to reside in this State, and to travel in this THE CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment of the gen-State, what are you going to say about this provision that Chinamen tleman from San Francisco, Mr. Beerstecher, as amended. SPEECH OF MR. OVERTON. are prohibited from renting property? I would ask any gentleman MR. OVERTON. Mr. Chairman: I did not intend to say anything upon this question now before the house, but from certain inquiries that have been made, certain allusions that have been made, by some of the gentlemen in their remarks, wanting to know why the lawyers on the floor had not participated in this debate-not that I thought the remarks had any reference to me whatever, because I don't claim to be one of the eminent lawyers whom this Convention would like to hear from in respect to this matter before the house; but two or three of the gentlemen found fault because the eminent lawyers on this floor have not expressed themselves either for or against the propositions intro-gentleman here, if he would not better his condition if he could? Do duced here. My reply is that there is but one side to take, looking at we not all desire to make more money? Is it not human nature to it in its legal aspect. Perhaps the reason that they have remained better our condition whenever we can? I ask any gentleman, if there silent is that they know how utterly futile it would be to oppose the should be placer diggings discovered that would pay one hundred dollars a |