taxed alike, for one is as good as the other. If the land will produce so much the owner should be compelled to pay taxes on it. When you have done that then you can abolish land monopoly. It will fall down of its own weight. If the owners are compelled to pay taxes as other men do, they will sell the land, or put it to some use. If you will do that there will be an end to land monopoly, and that very soon. Pass such a resolution, and in ten years from now there will be a different state of affairs in this country.

REMARKS OF MR. HARRISON.

which says, that land cannot be preempted by a person who owns three hundred and twenty acres now. These lands are kept for the landless. There are other valuable features in the United States laws. It would be an easy matter for me to impress the members with the wisdom of the various provisions, but it would be too much like legislation to put them in the Constitution. This may work some inconvenience, but it has got to be a practical thing. If it is a proper thing for us to get up here and cry down land monopoly as a great evil, it is proper that we do something to remedy that evil. I will support anything in the Constitution that does not violate my oath to support the Constitution of the United States. I think the report of the committee entirely impracticable.

REMARKS OF MR. HOWARD.

MR. HARRISON. Mr. Chairman: I want to make a few short remarks. In my opinion, sir, the land question is the most important question before the Convention to-day. In ten years Congress gave away one hundred and sixty million acres of land of the United States. This land has been given away between eighteen hundred and sixty-six and eighteen hundred and seventy-two. Of this, ten million belonged to the State of California. Now, we find one hundred and sixty million acres is two hundred and fifty square miles, in other words, a bigger State than England or France ever were. Now, sir, these two nations are more prosperous than any on the face of the earth to-day, principally on account of their land system and small farms. England not so much her farms as her commerce and mines. But here, in California to-day, sir, we have not room half enough. This is a nice state of affairs. Now, in a new country like this, I hold that the land ought to be held in trust for the people, not given away to corporations-to thiev-again in eighteen hundred and sixty-two. ing corporations-because they don't pay their taxes upon it. Now for the figures: One million acres, divided into farms would give homes to six thousand two hundred and fifty families, and these families would average five, which would be more than thirty-five thousand two hundred and fifty people. To-day Illinois has three times as many farms as the State of California. The reason is because the land has been gobbled up by land monopolists, and there is no more land to be had. The gentleman, Mr. Brown, says there has been no land agitation. He has just waked up from a long Rip Van Winkle sleep-risen up from somewhere. Is he not aware that the settlers in that very county are now banded together in organized warfare against the railroad company, which is trying to dispossess them from their homesteads, and they will have to pay fifteen dollars to twenty dollars an acre for it. If this is not a test toward monopoly limitation-if Mr. Brown don't understand it so, he will find out when he returns to his people.

MR. HOWARD, of Los Angeles. I wish to correct the gentleman's history. He has made a mistake about Mr. Clay. I happened to be at Washington on a visit and heard Mr. Clay denounce the whole system in open Senate. My memory good on that point, because he had a passage at arms with L. J. Walker, for whom I had voted for the Senate of the United States. The preemption is the result of Democratic policy. Now as to the question before the committee. My recollection is not so vivid upon the homestead law. It may be so-I cannot deny it. But I think the gentleman is mistaken there also. I don't think a Democratic President ever vetoed it.

SPEECH OF MR. MCCALLUM.

MR. MCCALLUM. Mr. Chairman: Before a vote is taken on this amendment, I wish to say a word. Prior to eighteen hundred and forty-one, the system existing in the United States was about the same as that which exists in California to-day. Prior to that date there was no preemption, no homestead provision. The fact is, though, in this respect they differed somewhat from our State laws; prior that time settlers went on public land as trespassers. I hope I may be pardoned for saying in the presence of the gentleman from San Francisco, Mr. Wilson, and the gentleman from Los Angeles, that the first preëemption law was passed by Congress, under the leadership of Henry Clay, in eighteen hundred and forty-one.

denounced it.

MR. MCCALLUM. Yes, sir, he did, and it was passed, as you know, MR. HOWARD. Yes, sir, I know it was during Lincoln's term. To that extent the Republicans are entitled to the credit. I don't deny the fact.

MR. CROSS. Mr. Johnson was President part of the time, and he was a Democratic President. MR. MCCALLUM. Andrew Johnson was a Republican in eighteen hundred and sixty-two.

MR. GRACE. He was a Workingman in eighteen hundred and sixty-two also.

MR. HOWARD. He was said to be a tailor who made clothes to fit.

He was a Workingman. He never claimed to be a Republican. He claimed to act with the Republican party for the benefit of the Union, and the first chance he got he went back upon the Republicans most decidedly. Now as to this proposition limiting the amount of land to three hundred and twenty acres, I shall vote for it, because it is in conformity with the Federal policy, and the action of the Congress of the United States. I consider just and wise to limit the amount of land to be acquired through the Federal Government, by actual settlers, to three hundred and twenty acres. As this amendment is in conformity with that policy I shall vote for it.

MR. TULLY. How many Democrats were there in eighteen hundred and sixty-two? MR. HOWARD. I think they had gone South at that time. [Laughter.]

MR. DOWLING. I wish to offer a substitute.

THE SECRETARY read:

"No more than three hundred and twenty acres of the lands of this State shall be granted or patented by the State to any one person, corporation, or association of persons. No person can transmit by will or otherwise to his heirs more than six hundred and forty acres of land. The only property that any person, corporation, or association can acquire in any lands exceeding six hundred and forty acres is a use, and such use is subject to legislative control. The Legislature shall provide for a general survey of all the agricultural lands of this State, and all lands not acquired in strict conformity with the homestead exemption and the land laws of the United States, shall escheat to the State. The practice of subletting lands is hereby declared illegal."

SPEECH OF MR. DOWLING.

MR. HOWARD. You are mistaken about Mr. Clay. He always MR. MCCALLUM. My reading of history is different from yours. In eighteen hundred and sixty we had passed through Congress the first United States homestead law. Perhaps some gentleman will rise to a question of history when I state that that law was vetoed by James Buchanan. In eighteen hundred and sixty-two, when it passed through Congress again, it was then approved by the first Republican President of the United States, Abraham Lincoln. The United States laws, sir, are a vast improvement on what they were in eighteen hundred and forty. They are a vast improvement upon any State law we have ever had in California, as to State lands. Now, sir, the system prevails in California that did prevail in the United States, under what was called the private entry system. Lands which were proclaimed to be sold by the President of the United States, not being sold upon the day of sale, were thereafter open to private entry in the Land Office where they were offered. Any person could go into the Land Office and purchase these lands without settlement. It was under that system that the great land grants in the San Joaquin Valley were obtained. This scrip, about which so much has been said, was used only to purchase such lands as were subject to private entry. These lands could be taken merely upon application. There has been very little scrip issued that could be located upon land not subject to private entry. Of this land there has never been an acre entered, I believe, but land that was sub-interfere with the purchasing of land. You can purchase as much land ject to private entry.

As far as my official term was concerned, not a single acre of land was ever sold to any person except an actual settler. After eighteen hundred and sixty, the old system of having land subject to private entry, was abolished, and since that time there has been comparatively very little monopoly of the public lands of the United States; the monopoly has been in State lands. Some gentleman stated that ten millions of acres were disposed of. Certainly the greater part has been disposed of, but, sir, there never has been any law in this State to prevent the monopoly of State lands. At one time there was a limit to three hundred and twenty acres, but even that was abolished for some time. This limit amounted to nothing, because it was only necessary to get different persons to make the applications, while the real purchaser takes the land. It is not so under the United States law. There is a regular scheme which ought to be in our Constitution, only it would take up too much room, but what. I suggest here is the gist of it, namely, that land should be sold only to actual settlers. I use the words "lands fit for cultivation," because there is some land that is only fit for pasturage. It might be a good idea to add the provision of the United States law,

MR. DOWLING. Mr. Chairman: The first point is I think, that we want a limited acquisition of the public domain. We therefore say that three hundred and twenty acres, and no more, can be acquired by any party in this State, by any individual or any corporation. In the past it will be remembered that this State has granted patents to people for hundreds and thousands of acres of land. Now, sir, this is a thing we should guard against in the future, so that the people may enjoy what little land remains. It is all gobbled up. But the people want something. They want the few acres that remain, to be distributed in the spirit and according to right and justice. I believe it is contrary to the genius of our Republican institutions to prohibit a man from purchasing as much land as he has got money to pay for. This proposition don't

as you have money to pay for, but you can't buy from the State any more than three hundred and twenty acres.

Again, it will be remembered that land, air, and water are three natural elements, without which it is impossible to live. Man would sink in silent doom, and wholly disappear. I do not want to perpetuate land the same as they do in England, the same as they have it in all those countries that are under the yoke of monopoly institutions; they transmit from posterity to posterity since time immemorial. That has been tried in this country, too. But it will never succeed. Now, sir, the only property that any man can possess in land, over six hundred and forty acres, is the use of it. A man could not eat the land; it is no good to him. He has simply the use of it, the same as the use of water, or any other element. He has got the use of as much as he can purchase, and so long as he leaves it when he dies, he will, according to the proposition introduced here, which is in harmony with a provision in the State of Virginia, he will retain six hundred and forty acres of his land, and the balance will be sold, and the proceeds go to the support of the children. In the mean time the children can buy it from the State at the original price, and still retain it during their natural lives.

Again, sir, the third point I wish to cover. It has been customary in this State, it has been the practice ever since the State was admitted into the Union, and that is that a person could file a homestead on one hundred and sixty acres of land. This is the proceeding under which Lux & Miller, the great land monopolists of California, have succeeded in owning, or controlling, or holding the great valley of the San Joaquin, from San Francisco to Los Angeles. They can drive their cattle from one end to the other upon their own ground. The public cannot do that. If we don't solve this question, it is useless to deny that we will have a bloody revolution in this country. We are coming to it. Unless we adopt some means to solve this great question we will have a bloody revolution.

SPEECH OF MR. AYERS.

have been voted down. It is out of order. I am under the impression that it will not meet the approval of this body. When a man dies, his property is his to do what he pleases with. It does not belong to the State, and the State has no right to say what he shall do with it.

SPEECH OF MR. TULLY.

MR. TULLY. Mr. Chairman: I did not intend to say anything with reference to this matter, but I thought it was right to put myself on the record upon this land question. As far as the State is concerned, limiting the amount of land which a man may buy, I denounce the whole thing as a miserable humbug. The idea of gentlemen getting up here and seriously discussing that matter! That a man may be limited in the amount of land he may buy, is a startling proposition. I notice MR. AYERS. Mr. Chairman: The substitute introduced by the gen-this morning that the distinguished gentleman from Monterey, whom I tleman from Alameda, Mr. McCallum, meets with my approval. It admire so much, made a speech to this Convention, and he found it seems to me that if we can do anything at all for the purpose of limit- necessary to apologize to this Convention, by saying that he was in favor ing land monopoly of the public lands of this State, we should do it in of a man buying all the land he wanted, and he said you could not this Constitution. It is manifest to every observing man, that the great limit a man for what he now owned, but hereafter he will have to be necessity of this State now is population-a population of the right kind. limited. Now, I have always liked him very much. I always listen Our whole State is suffering for want of immigration of the right kind, to him with pleasure. Then my venerable friend from Los Angelesand so long as the lands of this State are owned by a few men, so long the man I learned my democracy from, whom I have followed for thirty as the lands belonging to this State are allowed to be monopolized by a years he gets up and apologizes to the Convention, and says the reason few scheming men, so long will the right kind of emigration refuse to he does not favor limiting land holding is, because the Supreme Court of You will find the man come here. Now it seems to me that the gentlemen who represent the the United States will not allow him to do so. large cities would find it to their interest to aid the people from the who wants to be Governor, and the man who wants to go to Congress, country in trying to solve this question in a proper manner. There is no and the man who wants to be President of the Senate-they all get up lack of good land in this State, but there is a lack of the means of acquir-here and say they are in favor of doing this thing provided they can do ing it. And if we can control the lands yet belonging to the State-if it. They want to limit these men. Now I would not limit anybody. we can secure their distribution in the proper manner-it will tend to I regard this whole thing as a burlesque upon the civilization of the depreciate the price of new lands in this State. In doing so we shall age. The idea of a lot of men advocating a proposition in this Conveninvite immigration, and aid the prosperity of the State. The State is tion to limit you in the acquisition of property. now stagnant for want of population. This land question, as has been MR. O'SULLIVAN. I understand you are the attorney of Lux & said here, is one of the most serious that we have to deal with, and I Miller, the biggest land grabbers in the State of California. hope it will receive the attention which it deserves. I think the amendment of the gentleman from Alameda will tend largely to produce a different state of affairs from what we have had in the past, and I hope the Convention will adopt it.

SPEECH OF MR. BROWN.

MR. TULLY. Yes, sir; and they have paid me very well, sir. But the idea of these gentlemen getting up here and seriously advocating a proposition that a man shall not acquire all the land he wants. It is simply a miserable humbug. There are forty millions of acres in this State now which can be located by these gentlemen who are humbugging around in this Convention about land monopoly; but the truth is, MR. BROWN. Mr. Chairman: It appears to me, sir, that it is often they do not want to go back where the land is. They want to move in the case, when we attempt to remedy one evil, another evil is created town, and take up vacant land there. They want improved property, by what we intended as a remedy. Now, here we make a compromise without the labor of improving it. They don't want to go out in the on three hundred and twenty acres as the amount that can be granted country away from town, like others have done. You cannot get one by the State. This looks more liberal than one hundred and sixty acres, of these men to go out in the country. They want to stay here within but, in the midst of everything, let any one be acquainted with farm-sight of the Capitol. I can see what they want to do, and I desire to ing and stock raising, which is the principal thing followed in the foot-enter my protest against it. I think it is all a miserable humbug, and hills, and he will know at once that three hundred and twenty acres is an outrage, to talk about these things, and I am only astonished that not sufficient. It will not amount to anything in the way of an induce- this Convention has indulged these gentlemen so long. I am astonished ment to settlers to settle in these places to engage in the business of that my venerable friend from Los Angeles, and other intelligent genstock raising and adding to the wealth of the country; and such a consti- tlemen here, will get up here and dignify such a thing by seriously contutional provision as this will prevent the settlement of these foothills. sidering it. I am going to now move the previous question. Three hundred and twenty acres is not sufficient. MR. HOWARD, of Los Angeles. What cheek! MR. AYERS. What assurance!

MR. DOWLING. Is not three hundred and twenty acres of agricultural land sufficient to support a family?

MR. BROWN. No sir, it is not. Any man who has ever lived in theI foothills knows that when he takes to raising sheep, that even six hundred acres will not produce grass enough to make him a living. It is simply an impossibility, and men who understand this matter practically, are fully aware of it. Now, these are matters of consequence, and should be taken into consideration.

MR. DOWLING. How much land have you?

MR. BROWN. About one hundred acres in cultivation. I have about two hundred and forty acres altogether. Now, these are matters of fact. It is not land enough. No man can get along on twice that amount, and succeed in the growing industries of stock raising. I have no doubt these gentlemen are earnest and sincere in their desire to do something for the welfare and advancement of the State, but they are laboring under a misapprehension, and will not subserve the purpose they have in view.

MR. AYERS. Does not the amendment read, suitable for cultivation? MR. BROWN. That does not matter. You could not find three hundred and twenty acres in these mountains, suitable for cultivation. It is only in small patches, and, it appears to me, that this matter is not comprehended-it is not understood.

MR. AYERS. It is left to the Legislature to manage.

MR. TULLY. Now, sir, in conclusion, I want it distinctly understood would not have any office I cannot get. I don't want, like the boy from Marin, to be Governor, or anything of that kind. In conclusion, I say, I move the previous question.

Seconded by Messrs. Larue, Cross, Huestis, and Hitchcock.

MR. WELLIN. Will the Chair entertain such a motion, after the gentleman has spoken for ten minutes, and then moves the previous question?

THE CHAIRMAN. It is a proper motion. The question is: Shall the main question be now put? Lost-ayes, 45; noes, 47.

SPEECH OF MR. GRACE.

MR. GRACE. Mr. Chairman: I just want to speak in reference to some things said by my friend, the Major, from Butte, in speaking about the disposition of the workingmen in not being willing to go to Butte County to settle. Now, am a workingman, and well acquainted with the workingmen of California; and I know the majority of the workingmen, or a large portion of them, are men with families to support, and they are men who are willing and anxious to work. Whenever they can get work, they are willing to take it. They go around hunting for work, but they cannot always find it.

MR. PROUTY. I would like to know if you know any of them who want land?

MR. BROWN. I am opposed to the amendment. I am trying to present my argument. If this amendment is adopted, it will, in many places, destroy the business which we are attempting to promote. I am under the impression that it will work a great hardship, and I am convinced that the gentlemen who advocate this do not understand what they are doing. Such a provision as this inserted in the fundamental law of the State would prove utterly antagonistic to the best interests of the State. How few of these gentlemen who argue upon this matter have ever seen the foothills. They are not conversant with them. How few ever attempted to cultivate them. This amendment does not cover the case properly. I would call upon the members to investigate and study this matter before they attempt to pass upon it. I am convinced that there is a principle in it that is not seen, that will strike where it is not intended, and which will destroy the great industrial interests of this State, both farming and stock raising. Now, in regard to the amend-hedged about that a working man would only take his family there to ment, which prevents a man from giving to his children, when he dies, more than six hundred and forty acres. Now, I thought that matter was passed, but it comes up again. It has been held in all ages to be in accordance with the higher law, that a man has a right to do as he pleases with his own. I am therefore opposed to that amendment on principle. It would be the same as some of the amendments which

MR. GRACE. Yes, sir. In eighteen hundred and seventy-two, when the Central Pacific Railroad Company put their bridge across the Sacramento River, I went up there on the twenty-eighth day of June, and stayed until October-eighteen weeks, in the hottest weather a man ever endured, when, in putting the frame work across the river, I would absolutely be so heated as to almost sink in my tracks. We worked twelve hours a day in the blazing heat of the sun. All those men voted the Workingmen's ticket. Well, I was there, and I looked around to see what the prospect was for getting some land. It is a fine valley, with beautiful land. Though it is hot there it is never dry, and if I had been well fixed I would have liked to have got some of it. But I soon saw that I could not get hold of land without going way off. It is so starve. I was not like my friend Wilson of Tehama, with his pocket full of land scrip. He came there in eighteen hundred and forty-nine. I am in favor of giving forty-niners all a chance. He has been here longer than I have. He is an older man than I am. I left home before I was twenty years old, and turned my face towards the West. I arrived in the mines without means. We had a mining law that a man could