LEAVE OF ABSENCE. Leave of absence for one day was granted Mr. Schell. THE JOURNAL. difference how unanimously we might be agreed upon it; no matter MR. WYATT. Mr. President: I move that the reading of the Journal upon each section, whether we amend it or not. MEMORIAL TO CONGRESS. MR. AYERS presented the following resolution: Resolved, That a special committee of three be appointed by the President to draw up a memorial to Congress, protesting against the further issuance of scrip which can be located on vacant Government lands, whether surveyed or unsurveyed. MR. AYERS. Mr. President: I offer this resolution so that this Convention may be enabled to protest against the practice which has grown up in this Government of issuing preferred scrip on public lands, whether surveyed or unsurveyed. This practice has resulted not only in great injury to the honest settlers, but it has caused great wrongs in regard to titles that already seemed to have been settled. Take the Valentine scrip for instance. That scrip has been held by parties and laid in wait to find a flaw in some title to land located in one of the populous and wealthy centers, and whenever a flaw has been found, this scrip has pounced upon it and taken it. I find, Mr. President, a dispatch in one of our public papers relative to this matter, showing that we are about to have a new avalanche of this serip, which will go in and precede the settler, take away the choice lands, and do great public injury: "WASHINGTON, January 21.-The House Committee on Public Lands to day agreed to recommend the passage of Luttrell's bill providing for the issuance of scrip to owners of the Oregon wagon road grant of July third, eighteen hundred and forty-four, for the number of acres equal to the quantity of lands within the limits of said grant, subsequently embraced in the Klamath Indian Reservation. The proposed scrip is to be locatable on any unoccupied and unappropriated public lands, not mineral, whether surveyed or unsurveyed. It could be used apparently just like the Valentine scrip, and the amount called for by the terms of the bill, though not stated, is understood to be very large." Now, sir, I for one protest against this practice of issuing scrip which may disturb titles, and which may gobble up the land which settlers ought to have. It is a practice which is ruining the country, and I hope that the resolution may be adopted, and that a committee will be appointed to investigate this matter and send on a proper protest. MR. WEST. I second the motion. The resolution was adopted. LAND AND HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION. MR. BEERSTECHER. Mr. President: I move that nine hundred and sixty copies of the report of the Committee of the Whole upon the minority report of the Committee on Land and Homestead Exemption be printed as a supplement to the report already made. MR. ESTEE. Was not the original minority report printed? MR. ESTEE. Well, then, I do not see why we should print a second edition of the minority report. This Convention has acted upon the report in Committee of the Whole. It will be printed and come on the file. Now, as I understand it, the original minority report was printed. MR. BEERSTECHER. The motion is to print the report of the Committee of the Whole. MR. HAGER. The motion is all right enough except the number of copies. MR. O'SULLIVAN. I move that the number be four hundred and eighty-the usual number. The motion prevailed. REPORT. MR. STEDMAN. Mr. President: I send up a report. MR. PRESIDENT: Your Committee on Labor and Capital have had under consideration Proposition No. 517-in relation to the hours of labor-and have directed me to report the same back to the Convention, with a recommendation that it be not adopted. They have also had under consideration Propositions Nos. 74 and 476-in relation to a State Department of Labor and Labor Statistics-and being unable to agree upon the same, have directed me to report them back to the Convention without any recommendation. All of which is respectfully submitted. I. S. BELCHER, Chairman. MR. BEERSTECHER. Mr. President: I move that the report be placed upon the general file for action by the Committee of the Whole. THE PRESIDENT pro tem. It goes there without a motion. CHANGE OF RULE. MR. MCCALLUM. Mr. President: I gave notice that I would to-day move to amend Rule Twenty-four by striking out the last proviso in that rule, which motion I now make. Rule Twenty-four, under the head of calling the ayes and noes, provides: "On all questions and motions whatsoever, the President shall take the sense of the Convention by ayes and noes; provided, five members present shall so require. When the ayes and noes are taken no member shall be allowed to vote who shall have entered the Convention after the calling of the roll is finished. The names of members shall be called in alphabetical order." it as a part of the proposed new Constitution. I could not, if the time permitted me, say how many sections there would be in this new Constitution. It is safe to say it is double the number, which would be three hundred and six. Besides we have several articles in addition to what we had before. We have, in fact, thirty committees, and each committee reports something. I suppose that is upon the idea that if they did not report something it would be thought they had not done their duty; and that makes the instrument more voluininous than it would otherwise have been. Estimate only ten sections to a committee, and it would make three hundred sections. We have a report of the Committee on Corporations other than Municipal which contains some twentysix sections, which is entirely different from the old Constitution, being in a separate article; another report on revenue, which is entirely a separate article; and in a number of articles which I have had an opportunity to examine I find that the sections are considerably increased. I understand that it takes twenty minutes to call the roll, or it will average twenty minutes. There would be three hundred roll calls; One hundred that is six thousand minutes; how many hours is that? hours. That would be twenty days at five hours each day. It would actually take twenty days time to call the roll, and do nothing else. Under the rule five members can call for the ayes and noes, and where there is no material difference of opinion it is not necessary to call the roll on every section. This is only to avoid the inflexible rule, that it must be called anyhow. I think it will be passed by a unanimous vote, if there is a correct understanding of it. MR. WHITE. Would this disturb the right of five members to call for the ayes and noes? MR. MCCALLUM. No sir. Five members may call for the ayes and noes any how. MR. BEERSTECHER. Mr. President: I believe, sir, that if that be stricken out, there will be no time gained at all, because there will be a sufficient number of members upon this floor who will be anxious to have the ayes and noes go upon record, and consequently the ayes and noes will be called by five members. The Chair will then be under the obligation of saying: Is the call for the ayes and noes supported? These members must then arise, their names must go upon record upon the Journal, and the very fact of obliging five members to call for the ayes and nocs will consume as much time as the roll will, taken under the rule. I know that it has been the common practice with certain men upon this floor, after the Chair has decided that the vote was in their favor, to then jump up and ask for a division. I have known men to do it upon this floor more than fifty times. The same thing will happen in relation to a call for the ayes and noes, and the very fact of calling for the ayes and noes will use up more time than if we go on under the rule. I am opposed to the change. MR. DOWLING. Mr. President: I am opposed to amending this rule as proposed by the gentleman from Alameda, but if we have one that no one can offer any more than one amendment to each section, I think it will facilitate business and meet with the approbation of the Convention. MR. WATERS. Mr. President: I move the previous question. Seconded by Messrs. White, Swing, Larue, and Martin of Santa Cruz. The ayes and noes were demanded, on the adoption of the amendment, by Messrs. Farrell, Bell, Harrison, Nelson, and Smith of San Francisco. The roll was called, and the amendment rejected by the following vote, not being two thirds in the affirmative: I do not propose by my motion to interfere with that rule at all. The Barry, last proviso and the one which I move to strike out is this: "Provided, Beerstecher, further, that on all resolutions and propositions relating to the Constitu- | Bell, tion, the final vote shall be taken by ayes and noes." Tinnin, Turner, Walker, of Tuolumne, Waters, Webster, Weller. Wilson, of Tehama, Wyatt-63. Blackmer, Filcher, Freud, Under this rule the ayes and noes would have to be taken on every Boggs, motion which would come before the committee. It would make no Burt, Harrison, Harvey, Herrington, "Substitute for section ten: In order that future elections in this State shall conform to the requirements of this Constitution, the terms of all officers elected at the first election under the same, shall be respectively one year shorter than the terms as in this Constitution provided, and the successors of all such officers shall be elected at the last election before the expiration of the terms as in this section provided. The first officers chosen after the adoption of this Constitution shall be elected at the time and in the manner now provided by law.'" REMARKS OF MR. BEERSTECHER. under the Constitution. This section, which is reported in the schedule, says: "SEC. 10. In order that future elections in this State shall conform to the requirements of this Constitution, the term of all officers elected under the same, and whose term of office is four years or over, shall be, respectively, one year shorter than the term provided for in this Constitution, and the term of all officers whose termi of office is two years shall be, respectively, one year longer than the term provided for in this Constitution, except the members of the Assembly, whose first term of office shall be one year; and the successors of all such officers shall be elected at the last election before the expiration of the terms as in this section provided. The first officers chosen after the adoption of this Constitution shall be elected at the time and in the manner now provided by law." MR. MCCALLUM. What provision do you refer to wherein we have agreed to have the election on the even years? MR. MORELAND. I do not believe that we have established it in the Constitution itself, but it seems to be an understanding in the Convention. MR. MCCALLUM. The discussion is going to be whether it shall be on even or odd years. There are two sides to that question. Read the section in the legislative article. MR. MORELAND. I do not know that it is yet settled. It has not yet been settled in the Constitution that the election shall be transferred to the even years. But it has been my understanding all the time that they would be. MR. STEDMAN. Does not the report transfer the elections to the even years after the first election just as well as the amendment? Both the report and the amendment transfer the election to the even years. MR. MORELAND. Yes; I think it is generally understood. This section endeavors to conform to the Constitution, to that requirement. Of for this section; but I am arguing on that hypothesis. This section is defective in several respects. First, it says that the terms of all officers elected under the Constitution. It does not say whether they are the first officers elected or not. MR. BEERSTECHER. Mr. Chairman: I am opposed to the amendment offered by Mr. Moreland, and I am in favor of the report of the Committee on Schedule as the same stands in section 'ten. If the sub-course, if the Constitution decides otherwise, there will be no necessity stitute of Mr. Moreland were adopted, the consequence of its adoption would be that we would have a general election in September of this year, and that we would have another general election for all State, county, and municipal officers next year. In other words, we would have two general elections within one year's time. And if the substitute of Mr. Moreland were adopted, with the Constitution as the same now stands, allowing two Boards of Supervisors in the City and County of San Francisco, or a legislative body with two departments in that city, one of these departments would only be in power and in operation about four months before they would be out of office under the provisions of the Moreland substitute. Now, every member upon this floor knows that if this Constitution that we are framing be adopted, in order to give the people of this State the benefit of its provisions, it will be necessary that legislation be had upon the subject. It will be necessary that force and efficacy be given to the several sections by legislative enactments. The Legislature cannot sit at all until next January, and the laws that that Legislature passes cannot go into force until some time in May, June, or July of next year, and yet the Moreland amendment proposes to wipe out all elected officers next year, virtually allow ing them to act under the new Constitution only about six months. If we desire to adopt anything of this character it would be less expensive for us simply to say that there shall be no such election this Fall, but that every person occupying official position in this State shall continue in office until a year from now. MR. MCFARLAND. Do you recollect whether or not we have established a day for the general election anywhere in this Constitution? MR. WYATT. The day of the Presidential election. We MR. MCCALLUM. There is its effect. It is assumed by the Committee on Schedule that we did change the time to the even years. have not done that. This report assumes that, but that is not correct. It has not been done by any article yet. We have not changed the year, but we have fixed the day in the year when the election will take place. MR. BEERSTECHER. Mr. Chairman: Section ten, as reported by a majority of the committee, provides that those persons elected to positions under the new Constitution shall continue in office until the next Presidential election; that is, those who are elected for two years shall continue in office three years and those elected for four years will hold but three years. That will bring the next election succeeding the election which takes place this Fall with the Presidential election of eighteen hundred and eighty-four, and will make matters all right and smooth. There will be no trouble about it. The government, under the new constitutional machinery, will be established and in perfect working order. This other way, we put into office a set of men who will have barely been in office before they are to be out of office, or at least before it becomes necessary to have another general election. I cannot see the object in electing men for six months. I cannot see the object of obliging people to go to the polls twice within one year. I believe that the amendment offered by Mr. Moreland is undesirable, and that the report of the committee is a desirable report. to be elected MR. WHITE. Under this report all members of the Assembly have MR. BEERSTECHER. I am speaking of the amendment as affecting the whole State, not particularly Assembly men., I believe that the report of the committee is a good and proper one, and the one usually adopted in Constitutions. REMARKS OF MR. MORELAND. MR. MORELAND. Mr. Chairman: The elections in this State have heretofore been and are now in odd years. The plan of the Constitution that has been adopted so far, is to transfer the elections from the odd years to the even years, and it therefore becomes necessary to make some provision in this Constitution whereby these elections may be transferred from the odd to the even years. To do that it is necessary either to shorten or to lengthen the terms of the first officers elected MR. SWENSON. Are you not aware that that is a clerical error in the report? I have already introduced an amendment to rectify that. MR. MORELAND. I did not draw up this section, and am not responsible for any of its defects. The section that I have introduced provides that the terms of all officers elected at the first election under the new Constitution shall be respectively one year shorter than the terms fixed in the Constitution. Now, Mr. Beerstecher seems to go upon the hypothesis that we are to have no election next year, but I would say that we are. The section excepts members of the Assembly, and says that their terms shall be but one year, consequently we will have to have an election next year for members of the Assembly. Under this section, as reported by the committee, the Senators elected for the short term would serve two terms in the Legislature, and those elected for the long term would serve three terms in the Legislature. I do not think the Convention want to provide that the Senators shall serve so many terms. The section I have introduced provides for cutting off the terms of all officers, without making any distinction, one year. That is, the Judges of the Supreme Court would serve nine years instead of ten. The State officers would serve three years instead of four, and county officers one year instead of two. The object is to bring the elections upon even years. I think the section I have introduced is more perfect than the other, and ought to be adopted. REMARKS OF MR. HERRINGTON. MR. HERRINGTON. Mr. Chairman: I desire to present an amendment. I propose to strike out lines one and two, down to and including the word same," in line three, and insert "the term of all officers elected at the first election under this Constitution." I will say, in connection with the amendment offered by Mr. Moreland, that I think the section as originally reported had better remain, so far as the substance is concerned. I am in favor of the report just as it stands, with the exception of the preamble, which I think is wholly unnecessary. There is no necessity of a preamble where it is unnecessary to carry out the objects and purposes of the section. I think the amendment as proposed by Mr. Moreland ought to be rejected, and that the report of the committee as it stands, so far as the substance is concerned, ought to be adopted. REMARKS OF MR. JOYCE. MR. JOYCE. Mr. Chairman: As a member of the Committee on Schedule, I want to say that this same proposition was introduced in the Committee on Schedule. We disapproved of it, sir, for what we considered very good reasons. According to some of the work already performed by this Convention, County Boards of Supervisors will have more power than they ever had before, to legislate our county matters. Now, sir, this Constitution is undergoing serious changes, and being that these gentlemen would have more to take into consideration, in the few months that they would have to remain in office, than they ever had before, we thought that the best thing that could be done to give these gentlemen an opportunity of legislating for the best interests of their counties and constituents, would be to transfer the shorter terms for one year, and give a longer term one year, so that we would agree in bringing the elections on the even years. That would meet the Congressional matter in a better shape than what it is in at the present time. But, sir, to carry out the amendment as he has it now, men will just about begin to organize for the purpose of making local laws, when a new election is called. My friend, Mr. Moreland, went in considerable on economy, but if his amendment is adopted, it will cost the State fifteen hundred dollars for every election that is held, and that might go to pay the back pay of the members of this Convention. So much saved to the State. Sir, I hope, for the better interests of the State and the peo ple at large, that the report from the committee will be adopted by the and seventy-nine, those who would hold office for four years, so as to Convention. REMARKS OF MR. HAGER. so on. bring the election again in eighteen hundred and eighty-two. Then the MR. HAGER. Mr. Chairman: I suppose we all understand what the object of this section is, and what the object of the amendment is. If the new Constitution should go into force, the elections would come on a different year from what they have been heretofore. Therefore, to inaugurate the new system it is necessary to change the terms; either to shorten them or lengthen them. The question is, whether we should shorten the terms, or lengthen the terms. Now, if there are any persons here who are ambitious or desirous of obtaining office under the Constitution, the policy would be to prolong the term one year; but if we are indisposed to accept office, I think the better plan would be to MR. WHITE. I would say "except the members of the Legislature." shorten the terms. But without regarding any person's ambition, what MR. ESTEE. Will my friend perimit me to make a suggestion. The ought we to do? What would be the best policy in inaugurating the original section now says: "In order that future elections in this State Constitution under the new system? As I understand the last amend-shall conform to the requirements of this Constitution, the term of all ment, it is intended to shorten a two years' term to one year, and a four officers elected under the same, and whose term of office is four years or years' term to three years, so that the officers elected at the first election over, shall be, respectively, one year shorter than the term provided for for two years will hold for one year, and those elected for four years in this Constitution, and the term of all officers whose term of office is would hold three years. Now, next Fall we have an election; the two years shall be, respectively, one year longer than the term provided Fall after that we will have another election, and the regular elections for in this Constitution, except the members of the Assembly, whose under the Constitution will come on the even years. The elections first term of office shall be one year." Now, the result is that the term under the old Constitution come on the odd years. By the old Consti- will always be three years unless that is amended. tution we have an election next Fall, and by the new Constitution we have another the year after. We will have an election at the time of the Presidential election. I think myself that if this Constitution is adopted by the people, we ought to have a Legislature meet next Winter, and a Legislature meet the following Winter, in order to inaugurate the new system. We will then have two succeeding Legislatures, one following the other for two years, and then after that it will be biennial. As far as I have thought of the matter, it seems to me that in all probability in inaugurating the new system under the new Constitution it may be desirable to have a Legislature next Winter and a Legislature the following Winter, although I do not know that it is absolutely necessary; but perhaps, as we have to have an election, and have to inaugurate the Constitution, it may be well enough to have two Legislatures, one succeeding the other, as the years succeed each other, in order to better inaugurate the new system under the new Constitution. Those who are elected for a four years' term will hold three years, and those elected for a two years' term will hold one year. The other proposition is, that those who are elected for two years should hold for three years. I do not think that is desirable. do not think that we ought to prolong a term. I am inclined to favor the amendment which is offered by the Chairman of the committee, to reduce the two years' term to one, and the four years' term to three. MR. JOYCE. Did you not go in for long terms all through this Con-State elections were to be held on the even years. The committee did vention? MR. HAGER. No; I am a short term man. I should vote for a short term. I am not in favor of a twelve-year term for Judges. I would prefer to have it six. I prefer always a short term, and if you get good men for the short term, it is easy enough to reëlect them. I am in favor always of short terms where they are elected by the people. REMARKS OF MR. ESTEE. MR. WHITE. I supposed it was provided in the legislative article that we have adopted that the term should be four years, and that this merely provided for the first term. That should be amended, of course, in that respect. REMARKS OF MR. MCCALLUM. MR. MCCALLUM. Mr. Chairman: This discussion is assuming a proposition to have been agreed upon by this Convention, which has not yet been met and determined. I trust gentlemen will not vote upon a long term or a short term, until we meet the question squarely and determine whether we are going to change the elections from the odd such change. On the contrary, the Constitution upon which we have to the even years. I say that the legislative committee has made no acted contemplates State elections on the odd years, the same as it has been heretofore. If this stands as reported by the legislative committee, then this whole section ten of the Committee on Schedule is entirely be voted down. It will stand then exactly as it was before. Now, sir, unnecessary. It ought to be struck out, and the amendment ought to the error into which gentlemen have been led, who were not connected with that committee and familiar with its transactions, is the fact that the election should be held in November, because Presidential elections have been held in November, and it has been assumed that therefore not see proper to take any further action upon the subject that is reported in this section three, which is the only thing on the subject. The members of the Assembly shall be chosen biennially, by the the first Monday in November, and their term of office shall be two qualified electors of their respective districts, on the first Tuesday after years." That is the amendment which I proposed, having introduced it, not to bring the elections on the even years, but simply to have a uniformshall be held that time of year, and so we changed from December to ity, inasmuch as the Act of Congress requires that national elections January as to the time of the meeting of the Legislature; it was thought Whether that amendment is a good one or to be just as good a time. not is of course not proper for me to say. I do not think it is of very much consequence-the change from September to November. The another thing, and in order to get a vote-I suppose it is in order-I question is will we change from the odd to the even years? That is move to strike out section ten of the report of the committee, simply to present that idea. There is only one real objection to this. That is, that by going on as heretofore we will have a Presidential election every four years, in which we have no other election-when no other officers will be the expense of an election under this proposition, which might are elected except Presidential electors and Congressmen. Now, there be saved if we would change this system. I submit that the saving is not worth the change. MR. ESTEE. Mr. Chairman, Gentlemen of the Committee: As I understand it, there is only one question involved in this amendment, and that question has been stated by the gentleman from San Francisco, Judge Hager. The question is, Shall we increase the term of the local officers to three years after the first election, or shall we fix it at one year after the first election under this new Constitution? It is a question of policy only. So far as I am concerned, I believe that it will redound to the best interest of the State, and it will have an effect upon the adoption of this Constitution, if it is thought worthy of adoption, which I believe it will be, to shorten the first term instead of lengthening it. I do not think that we ought to provide in this Constitution that the local officers of the City of San Francisco should hold for three years. The long terms have been tried, and it has been the universal opinion, so far as I have been able to observe, that in that city short terms for local officers is the true policy. As Judge Hager has well said, if a person proves by the exercise of his office, during a short term, that he is capable and honest, he will be reelected. That has been the rule in San Francisco, ture successively, in order to meet this difficulty. If we elect members It has been said here, that we must have two sessions of the Legislaregardless of party influence. I am in favor of short terms for local of the Legislature this year, and then elect them again in eighteen hunofficers. My friends who are candidates for office may think otherwise.dred and eighty-two, under the proposed change we would have no sesThe idea of electing men for two years, and lengthening their terms to session of the Legislature for three years-the next session in eighteen three years, I think will not meet with the approval of the people of hundred and eighty, and the following session in eighteen hundred and that city. I hope that the amendment as proposed by the gentleman eighty-three. Therefore there would be a necessity to have succeeding from Sonoma, Mr. Moreland, will be adopted for that reason. I think it will be a wise provision, and I indorse what Judge Hager said in Legislature amounts to more than the costs of an election for President. sessions of the Legislature, and, sir, the cost of this extra session of the regard to it. Now, we have had this system heretofore, and I say it works well. My judgment is, that too much consequence is given to national politics, and too little to State politics. It is often of more consequence to the people who is elected Supervisor of a district, than who is elected President of the United States. I have been about as strong a partisan as most gentlemen on the floor, but my experience in the matter has convinced me that more attention to the local offices-and this is particularly true where the issues between national parties can scarcely be defined. I would like to see more consequence given to State politics, and less to national politics. I think we had better keep it as it is. There are so many difficulties about having two sessions of the Legislature in succession, which would be involved in this idea reported by the Committee on Schedule. I present this motion to strike out this whole section. As to whether the terms of officers should be extended, I would be in favor of shortening them rather than extending thembut I am discussing the main question, as to whether we should change our system or not. REMARKS OF MR. WELLER. MR. WELLER. Mr. Chairman: I look upon this section as one of the most vital that we shall adopt, from the very fact that the frequency of our elections have been a great burden. If we elect for three years, commencing at the present time, we will have another election in eighteen hundred and eighty-two-a gubernatorial election for the State. The Presidential election comes in eighteen hundred and eighty, and every two years we will have an important election-a gubernatorial once in four years and a Presidential election once in four yearsand that will draw out the general vote of the State each election. I do not see the objection to having our officers remain in office under this Constitution, even if it is new, for three years. Those that hold office for four years would be elected again in eighteen hundred and eightytwo, and bring the elections on even years, and then alternately the gubernatorial election and the Presidential election. I favor this section that would elect the State officers for three years from eighteen hundred MR. MORELAND. I hope that this motion to strike out will not prevail. THE CHAIRMAN. The motion is not in order, and will not be entertained until the other motions are disposed of. MR. AYERS. Mr. Chairman: I hope that the amendments now before the committee will be voted down, and that the motion to strike out will prevail. I do not see any necessity for changing the time for holding the general elections in this State, and I say that the argument is strong and forcible that the general elections should be kept as they are now, apart from the national or Presidential elections. Under this Constitution we have created a very great many important offices which it will be more important for the people of this State to fill judiciously, than it will be whether this man or that man is elected President of the United States. It will be proper to keep our elections apart from the general elections of the Federal Government, and I hope that the amendment will be voted down, and that we will agree to the motion of the gentleman from Alameda to strike out the section and leave it as it is. MR. BEERSTECHER. Mr. Chairman: I am in favor of the motion to be offered by the gentleman from Alameda, Mr. McCallum. I think the section ought to be stricken out MR. HAGER. If that motion is not before the House then you have spoken once on the subject pending. MR. BEERSTECHER. I desire merely to say if the section is stricken out to the word "the," in the ninth line, it will be sufficient. REMARKS OF MR. BARRY. MR. BARRY. Mr. Chairman: I hope the amendment to section ten will be voted down, and the motion to strike out, offered by Mr. McCallum, will prevail. Section three of the report of the Committee on Legislative Department, which Mr. McCallum referred to, expressly says, that the members of the Assembly shall be chosen biennially, and their term of office shall be two years. Now, we have agreed upon that in committee, and section ten is in direct conflict with section three of the legislative article, by providing that the terms of the members of the Assembly shall be but for one year. I do not think that we ought to undo what we have already done, especially, as this is better as it now stands. I have heard no objections with regard to the members of the Assembly holding for two years; and as I have claimed before, on this floor, upon questions of this character, where there is no change demanded by the people, I believe that we, acting in the interests of the people, should not favor a change where there appears to be no change demanded, and no change necessary. If there is any one thing that is more essential than another in official duties it is experience in office. The experience that a man has in public offices makes him qualified to perform his duties. I think that if section ten is stricken out and this report of the Committee on Legislative Department, section three, is agreed upon when we come into Convention, that then the ends will be subserved which the Committee on Schedule desire to have subserved by their report on section ten. REMARKS OF MR. MCFARLAND. MR. MCFARLAND. Mr. Chairman: It seems to me that you do not all understand this section alike. Now, the gentleman from Los Angeles says, that he is opposed to State elections coming on the same day with the Presidential election. Now, I understand that by this section we elect all our States officers on a year other than that in which the Presidential election is held. For instance, the next Presidential election is in eighteen hundred and eighty. We elect our Governor and State officers in eighteen hundred and eighty-two. We elect a President again in eighteen hundred and eighty-four, and State officers again in eighteen hundred and eighty-six. The only election that we would have at the time of the Presidential election would be some local officers and members of the Legislature. We certainly could stand that. It does seem to me that every two years is often enough to have an election. Now, if this amendment of Mr. Moreland is adopted, we would have an election every two years, and that is enough. MR. AYERS. Wouldn't it bring the election for State officers and Presidential Electors on the same year? MR. MCFARLAND. The State officers would be elected in eighteen hundred and eighty-two, and the President in eighteen hundred and eighty-four. County officers would be elected both in eighteen hundred and eighty-two and eighteen hundred and eighty-four. One election in two years would be enough. They would both be important elections, and would both bring out the full vote. MR. AYERS. Then I understand the gentleman to go on the idea that the State officers shall be elected in eighteen hundred and eightytwo instead of eighteen hundred and eighty. That is not the question before this Convention. MR. MCFARLAND. Under this section our State election will come in this year, in eighteen hundred and eighty-two, and again in eighteen hundred and eighty-six, and never touch the Presidential election-that is, if the section, as it stands, is adopted. ment. MR. AYERS. But suppose the amendment is adopted. MR. MORELAND. It would come just the same under the amendMR. MCFARLAND. I think that is right. It will give an election every two years. MR. SHAFTER. Mr. Chairman: The terms of the State officers, including judicial and legislative offices, are fixed in the Constitution, and it is probable that this motion has reference to some other class of officers. I would inquire what officers they are, that are elected for two years under this Constitution? MR. MCCALLUM. Members of the Assembly and county officers. MR. SHAFTER. County officers are constitutional officers, but their terms of office are not fixed in the Constitution at all, and will not be governed by this amendment at all. County officers are utterly unaffected by it, for they are not elected for terms fixed in the Constitution. It simply declares that they shall exist. But their terms are not fixed in the old Constitution, and I am not aware that they are fixed in this. MR. MORELAND. This last clause says that: The first officers chosen after the adoption of this Constitution shall be elected at the time and in the manner now provided by law." MR. SHAFTER. They are elected under the statute, and not under the Constitution. It only applies to the constitutional terms. MR. AYERS. Would a motion be in order to pass this section until after we consider the article on legislative department in Convention? I think it would be well. MR. MCCALLUM. Mr. Chairman: I desire to ask, whether the chair will entertain my motion to strike out, if this amendment should be adopted. THE CHAIRMAN. Yes. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from San Francisco, Mr. Swenson, to insert the word "first," between the word "the" and the word "term," as it occurs the last time in line four. The amendment was adopted. MR. WEST. The last clause of this amendment says, that "the first officers chosen after the adoption of this Constitution, shall be elected at the time and in the manner now provided by law." The statute, at present, provides for the election of members of the Assembly, in September. They would hold office for one year under this provision. The point I wish information upon, is this: Do the committee expect to provide for the first two sessions of the Legislature, under the new Constitution, to be annual instead of biennial? MR. MCCALLUM. That would be the effect. I now make my motion to strike out section ten. MR. SHAFTER. I move to strike out the word "shorter," and insert the word "longer." MR. HAGER. This is out of order. It is going back to the original proposition. This proposition is to amend. MR. MCCALLUM. My motion is not in the nature of an amendment. My motion is simply to strike out. THE CHAIRMAN. I entertain the motion, but all these motions precede a motion to strike out. MR. WELLER. Mr. Chairman: The word "longer" will bring the gubernatorial and Presidential election both in the same year, and Mr. Moreland's amendment will bring the gubernatorial election in eighteen hundred and eighty-two. We do not want a Presidential election to interfere with our important State elections. We want an important election every two years. The consequence will be, under Mr. Moreland's substitute, that we will have our elections, Presidential and gubernatorial, alternately every two years. MR. KEYES. Mr. Chairman: It appears to me that this Convention does not understand the proposition. I think for my part, that it is decidedly perferable to have the elections on the even years, and that is the proposition in the Moreland amendment. The people do object to having so many elections. It has been a cause of complaint in my part of the country, that we have too many elections. REMARKS OF MR. LARKIN. MR. LARKIN. Mr. Chairman: This matter is a matter that would properly have come before the Committee on Privileges and Elections, but as the Committee on Legislative Department saw fit to report upon this matter in relation to the election of Senators and Representatives, I have seen fit to allow this discussion without calling a meeting of that committee for this purpose. I am certainly opposed to extending the time of any officer beyond the time provided in the Constitution. I believe that the true policy would be to elect the State officers this Fall for three years, and then again in eighteen hundred and eighty-two. It would bring our county elections on the even years. It will obviate the necessity of a special Act of Congress every two years for the election of our Congressmen. A special Act was passed because we did not want to hold an election last year. To extend the time will throw the gubernatorial election with the Presidential election, which I think should be defeated. MR. CROSS. My opinion is that the people did want an election this last year. MR. LARKIN. I speak of the Legislature as representing the people. Now if you adopt the Moreland amendment, you will bring the State election in eighteen hundred and eighty-two, in eighteen hundred and eighty-six, and so on between the presidential elections on even years. It will bring your county elections on even years, and I think it would suit better. To extend the term of the Governor and State officers, I do not approve of. The officers elected next Fall will be elected for three years. The officers elected for county officers would be elected for one year, so as to make it come on the even year. We can elect county officers in eighteen hundred and eighty, at the time of the presidential election. We would elect again in eighteen hundred and eighty-two, so it brings your elections uniform on even years. It avoids election expenses and the complaints that Mr. Keyes alluded to. The people demand that we should retrench upon this matter, and should provide for elections so that all officers should be elected every two years, and that the city, county, and township elections should conform to the general elections. It costs as much to elect county officers as State officers. All elections should be so that they can be held on even years. That will correspond with the provision offered by Mr. Moreland. MR. MCFARLAND. Mr. Chairman: I merely wish to call the attention of the Committee to the fact that if the amendment offered by Mr. Moreland is not adopted, we will have an election every year. If you do not adopt this section, you will have State elections every odd year, and National elections every even year. We have had one or two special laws of Congress, and such was the dissatisfaction that they are going to compel the Congressional elections to be uniform throughout the United States; and they will come on the even year preceding the Presidential election. Then without this section we will have an election every year. It seems to me that it is a foolish expenditure of money. If you go on with the present system, you are bound to have an election every year, whereas, if you adopt the amendment, you will only have an election every two years. been so ruled twenty times by the President during the session of this Convention. If a substitute is adopted we must pass to the next section. A motion to strike out a part of it and insert is not the adoption of the proposition itself. Here there has been a distinct vote to adopt it. MR. HAGER. Mr. Chairman: I refer to Rule Thirty-two: "A substitute shall be deemed an amendment, and be treated, in all respects, as such." Now, according to the parliamentary rule, as I understand MR. WHITE. Mr. Chairman: I submit to the members of this Con-it, there is no such thing as a substitute at all, it is merely an amendvention whether it would not be better to strike this out, and, in con-ment. The name substitute came into use by moving to strike out cernection with the article on legislative department, correct it as we wish.tain words and substitute others. This motion that has prevailed changes The fact is, we do not exactly understand the bearing of it. only about two words of that old section. The section is the same. A MR. MCCALLUM. What necessity is there for correcting the legis-practice has grown up here which I have never seen anywhere else. I lative article? MR. WHITE. I say if the majority of the Convention wish to alter it, it appears to me that is the proper time and place to do it. I suggested that we would strike that out, and get it into a shape that would do it much better, and make no conflict between the two sections. There are a great many gentlemen who do not understand the bearing of the two sections upon each other. When we get into Convention we can alter it to suit. REMARKS OF MR. MCCALLUM. MR. MCCALLUM. Mr. Chairman: If the amendment of the gentleman from Marin prevails, one year is to be added to the terms of all offices. For instance, the first terms of the Supreme Court Judges will be thirteen years, the Governor five years, our Railroad Commissioners, all of whom are to be elected for four years, will serve five years. No opportunity for any change whatever for five years in that case. As to the two propositions, I am in favor of the shorter, if this system is to be adopted at all. MR. AYERS. Would not the amendment of Judge Shafter bring the general State elections and the Presidential elections on the same year? Mr. McCALLUM. Yes. have seen whole sections recopied, with the change of only one or two words, and offered as a substitute. But this rule says that a substitute shall be deemed an amendment and treated, in all respects, as such." The proposition offered by the Chairman of the Committee on Schedule was nothing more than an amendment. MR. TERRY. Mr. Chairman: The motion of the gentleman from Alameda, as I understand it, was to strike out section ten, as reported by the committee. Now, that has been stricken out and another adopted. Now, what is there before the House? There is no motion to strike out the substitute. MR. MCCALLUM. My motion was to strike out section ten. MR. TERRY. Section ten has been stricken out and other words put in its place. MR. HAGER. Mr. Chairman: As I understand this thing, it is to put this thing back under the old Constitution, and have the elections in the odd years, instead of the even years. But perhaps we had better be cautious. A great many members are in favor of having the elections as they have been heretofore, so as to get them out of the Presidential elections, and of United States politics. Now, that is the question that ought to be determined first, by the Convention, whether we should have the elections in the odd or even years. It is a very easy matter." I regret the previous question was moved so early, because that is an important matter. I am inclined to favor the odd years. There is but one objection to it, and that is in regard to the congressional elections. important question to be settled by this Constitution, whether it is disposed to have these elections as they were, in the odd year, or, as some think, and as it is proposed to change, to the even year? If this substitute stands as it is now, we are confined, of course, to the even years by the change, but if we strike it out, it leaves it open to an arrangement in the future. I am therefore in favor of striking out, and I am in favor of sustaining the ruling of the Chair. Under the rule we have adopted, this must be considered as an amendment. MR. AYERS. That is an evil which we should guard against. MR. MCCALLUM. It would extend the term one year instead of shortening it one year. If the amendment should be adopted it would not only not be in conformity with the legislative article, but the legis-Our congressional election should have been last year. This is an lative article would have to be amended to conform to it, because all officers are to be elected at the next general election. We would then have to change that clause which requires them to be elected biennially, so as to be consistent with what we have already done. We have to vote down this amendment and strike out the section. MR. WYATT. I believe that we are as well prepared to vote now as we will be. I move the previous question. Seconded by Messrs. Freeman, Howard, of Los Angeles, Ayers, and West. The main question was ordered. MR. BEERSTECHER. Mr. Chairman: Mr. McCallum, of Alameda, made a motion to strike out. The Chair at that time decided the motion THE CHAIRMAN. The question is on the adoption of the amend-was not in order. There were two amendments before the House, one ment offered by the gentleman from Marin, Mr. Shafter. The amendment was rejected. THE CHAIRMAN. The question is on the adoption of the substitute, offered by the gentleman from Sonoma, Mr. Moreland. The substitute was adopted on a division, by a vote of 46 ayes to 40 noes. MR. MCCALLUM. Mr. Chairman: I move to strike out the section. MR. TERRY. It has been adopted by the committee and cannot be stricken out. It is not an amendment or a substitute. MR. MCCALLUM. I asked that specific question, whether a motion to strike out could be entertained, and the Chair answered in the affirmative. To say that we could not make that motion would be simply to deprive the Convention of an opportunity to vote upon it at all. The President of the Convention has uniformly ruled for the last two weeks that this was the last motion to be put. ment. of which was adopted. The amendment offered by Mr. Moreland was also adopted. Now, the Chair decides that the motion to strike out is in order. Unless the ruling of the Chair is sustained, Mr. McCallum's motion to strike out is totally ignored, and any motion to strike out that may be made in this House must necessarily hereafter be ignored. MR. TINNIN. Is a motion before the House until it is entertained by the Chair? MR. BEERSTECHER. The Chair decided that the motion was not in order at that time, but would be in order after the amendments were disposed of. I shall vote to sustain the ruling of the Chair. MR. ESTEE. Mr. Chairman: As I understand it this body has adopted a substitute for section ten. That is, this House was not satisfied with the original section, so it adopted something else different from the original section. It is true that our rules say that that substitute is nothing but an amendment, but it is an amendment representing the MR. HAGER. Mr. Chairman: This is nothing more than an amend-final action of this House. Now, the proposed amendment interposed It is adopted as an amendment, and the motion to strike out is perfectly in order, because the substitute is nothing more than an amend ment. MR. ESTEE. A motion to strike out without inserting anything is out of order. MR. TERRY. The action of the committee in inserting these words is binding, and it cannot be stricken out. We have already adopted it, and we cannot undo what we have done. MR. BLACKMER. There is nothing before the committee. THE CHAIRMAN. There is a motion before the house. The point of order is raised that that motion is not in order. In the opinion of the Chair it is in order. The Chair will entertain it. The question is upon the motion of the gentleman from Alameda to strike out the section." MR. SHAFTER. I appeal from the decision of the Chair. Seconded by Messrs. Reed and Blackmer. THE CHAIRMAN. The Chair has decided that the motion to strike out the section now, after it has been amended by a substitute, is in order. From that ruling there is an appeal taken by the gentleman from Marin. The question is: Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the Committee? MR. SHAFTER. Mr. Chairman: The general rule, as I understand it, is that after a legislative body has adopted a single proposition it cannot be overruled nor subverted by any process whatever. The only exception made is in our Rule Twenty-one: "Any member may call for a division of a question when the sense will admit. A motion to strike out and insert shall be deemed inadvisable; but a motion to strike out being lost shall neither preclude amendment nor a motion to strike out and insert." There has been no motion to strike out that has been lost. The section has been adopted just as it stands precisely, and it does not fall within this rule by any manner of means. If it did then you could have moved to amend, but having been adopted upon a distinct motion to adopt it, I do not see what power this committee has over it. It has by the gentleman from Alameda, is to strike out just what this House has just adopted, and that is unparliamentary. It cannot be done for this reason, that there never would be an end to the action of a legislative body; and the only means of reconsidering the action of a legislative body is by some member, who voted in the affirmative, giving notice of a motion to reconsider, and having it come up in its regular order. Again, let me say, that the ruling is not correct for another reason, that the gentleman moves to strike out section ten as originally presented. Section ten has been changed, and the result is as Judge Terry has stated. I think the house cannot reconsider. It is a well established proposition, that when a legislative body adopts any proposition, that proposition must remain as the action of that House, unless the proposition as amended be added to; but the original action cannot be changed except by adding to. You cannot strike it out. For that reason I shall have to vote to sustain the appeal. MR. MCFARLAND. Mr. Chairman: It seems to me that the ruling of the Chair is entirely correct. It does not follow because this body has amended a section that it has expressed its opinion in favor of the section. A majority of the committee may be against the whole subjectmatter, and it may be willing to amend it, so as to get it in the best form it may be got into. Suppose a majority were opposed to section ten; how are we going to get rid of it? There is only one way, and that is to strike it out. We do not adopt these sections in Committee of the Whole. We simply take up the section, consider it, and amend it. If the committee does not amend it, we go on. Suppose a majority of the committee are opposed to the whole provision; what can they do except to move to strike it out? Will gentlemen say, that because this committee has amended this section they cannot strike it out? Suppose a majority of the committee, being undetermined how to vote on the whole proposition, vote to amend it, and after they have looked at the section as amended, they say: "Well, we are opposed to it anyway, notwithstanding the amendment. The amendment makes it better, but it |