Mr. HALLECK's only object was to separate the two questions.

Mr. GWIN did not think there was a member on this floor in favor of a Territo

rial Government.

Mr. McCARVER proposed moving the question, whether this body proceed to form a State or Territorial Government.

The CHAIR considered the question embodied in the resolution.

Mr. HASTINGS was opposed to the resolution last offered, and in favor of the resolution providing for the organization of a State Government. If it was a State Government it would not be a Territorial Government.

Mr. GILBERT, in order to cover the whole, moved the following as an amendment to the amendment of Mr. Halleck:

1. Resolved, That it is expedient that this Convention now proceed to form a State Constitution for California.

2. Resolved, That a Committee consisting of- members from each district be appointed by the Chair to prepare a draft or plan for a Constitution for the State of California; and that such Committee be instructed to report to this Convention, with as little delay as possible, such articles or sections of said draft or plan as may have been passed in Committee fiom time to time.

Mr. HALLECK accepted Mr. Gilbert's proposition as a substitute for his amend

ment.

Mr. GWIN accepted the first resolution offered by Mr. Gilbert as a substitute for his second resolution, and in order to have a direct vote, called the previous question. The CHAIR stated that the previous question was on the original resolution, that being the order of the day.

Mr. HASTINGS moved to amend the resolution by inserting two from each district instead of one.

The CHAIR stated that the motion to add an additional member was within the reach of the House at any time.

Mr. GWIN accepted the amendment of two instead of one.

Mr. FOSTER suggested that the resolution to appoint a Committee be put in such shape as to give the opinion of the House directly on the subject of the form of government. Some members were in favor of a Territorial Government. For one, he was opposed at present to entering into a State Government. He desired, and so did others, to have the vote separate and distinct. It appeared to him that Mr. Halleck's amendment to the resolution accomplished the object.

Mr. GWIN renewed his call for the previous question; but the motion giving rise to discussion, he finally withdrew it.

Mr. CARILLO said the first question ought to be, whether California was to remain a Territory, or be formed into a State. Whatever determination there might be on that subject, he thought a Committee ought to be appointed to report upon it, that members might record their votes on that question alone, if they so desired it. Any step taken contrary to this plan would only involve the Convention in difficulty. Mr. WOZENCRAFT did not perceive what right the House had to enter into any question of that kind. The delegates of this Convention were elected for a special purpose-to form a State Constitution. They were not required to give any expression of opinion as to any other form of government.

The CHAIR stated that Governor Riley, in the recommendation contained in his proclamation, referred to a Territorial as well as a State Government.

Mr. TEFFT thought there was another reason why the two questions should be separated. If gentlemen were honest in stating that the two resolutions would have the same effect, it was yielding nothing to comply with the wishes of those who desired to record their vote in favor of a Territorial Government. He was compelled, in compliance with the wishes of his constituents, to vote for a Territorial Government. He considered it due to members who voted under such instructions, that the direct question should be put, whether the Convention should proceed to form a State or a Territorial Government.

Further dicussion having taken place, Mr. GILBERT called for the reading of

the two resolutions (Mr. Gwin's and his own in juxta position.) The Secretary read the resolutions.

Mr. BOTTS cordially approved of the sentiments expressed in the resolution of Mr. Gilbert; but strange to say, they led him to entirely different conclusions. He (Mr. Botts) wanted to see the whole subject discussed by the Convention in Committee of the Whole. He desired that every member should participate in the discussion. He was aware it was the wish of the gentleman that this Committee should return immediately with a plan of a Constitution to be laid before the House. But what does the resolution authorize this Committee to do? What power does it give the Committee? The very difficulty which the gentleman sought to avoid was involved in the adoption of the Constitution so reported. For his own part, he would vote for the resolution which provides for the taking of the test question at once, whether it should be a Constitution for the State or a Territorial Government. He would then offer an amendment providing that the House go directly into Committee of the Whole for the consideration of a Constitution for that State or Territory; and for precisely the same reasons that the gentleman from San Francisco had offered his resolution, requiring the Committee to report the plan of a Constitution in detached portions.

Mr. GILBERT said his chief motive was the desire to save time-the wish to shorten the sitting of this Convention to the least possible limit. In all the Conventions of which he had read, a great deal of time had been lost by parcelling out different departments of the Constitution to different Committees. It was the case in the late Convention of New York. They had some ten different Com. mittees. When all the reports were before the House, it took them two months to settle upon a plan of a Constitution. It was found that the different reports had no co-relative sympathy, and it was almost utterly impossible to unite them. This Committee, which he proposed, could hold its meetings during the intervals between the sittings of the Convention, and report from time to time such portions of the Constitution as they had adopted. The House could, meantime, be engaged in debating the articles before it in Committee of the Whole. He wished it distinctly understood that his object was to save time.

Mr. CARILLO stated that he represented one of the most respectable communities in California, and he did not believe it to be to the interest of his constitu ents that a State Government should be formed. At the same time, as a great majority of this Convention appeared to be in favor of a State Government, he proposed that the country should be divided by running a line west from San Luis Obispo, so that all north of that line might have a State Government, and all south thereof a Territorial Government. He and his colleagues were under instructions to vote for a Territorial organization. He took this view, because he believed it to be to the interest of his constituents. And although a gentleman belonging to this body had stated, that it was not the object of the Convention to form a Constitution for the Californians, he begged leave to say, that he considered himself as much an American citizen as the gentleman who made the assertion.

Mr. GWIN said he was very glad that the gentleman had afforded him an opportunity of stating precisely what his meaning was. He had been very much misunderstood on this point. What he said was, that the Constitution which they were about to form was for the American population. Why? Because the American population was the majority. It was for the protection of the California population-government was instituted for the protection of minorities-this Constitution was to be formed with a view to the protection of the minority: the native Californians. The majority of any community is the party to be governed; the restrictions of law are interposed between them and the weaker party; they are to be restrained from infringing upon the rights of the minority. The Interpreter having translated this explanation,

Mr. CARILLO expressed himself perfectly satisfied. He had nothing further to say, except that he conceived it to be to the interests of his constituents, if a Terri

torial Government could not be formed for the whole country, that the country should be so divided as to allow them that form, while the northern population might adopt a State Government if they preferred it.

Mr. FOSTER, although acting under instructions similar to those of his colleague, did not believe that a majority of his constituents wished a separation. There was no doubt they desired a Territorial Government, but he believed they would prefer to bear their share of the burden of a State Government rather than divide the country.

Mr. DIMMICK wished to say a word before the question was put. He represented a portion of the California population in this House. The idea was prevalent that the native Californians were opposed to a State Government. This he did not conceive to be the case. He was satisfied from the conversations he had had with them, that they were nearly unanimous in favor of a State Government. As to the line of distinction attempted to be drawn between native Californians and Americans, he knew no such distinction himself; his constituents knew none. They all claimed to be Americans. They would not consent to be placed in a minority. They classed themselves with Americans, and were entitled to be considered in the majority. No matter from what nation they came, he trusted that hereafter they would be classed with the American people. The Constitution was

to be formed for their benefit as well as to that of the native born Americans. They all had one common interest at stake, and one common object in view the protection of government.

Mr. GWIN would not be misunderstood by any interpretation given to his remarks on this floor or elsewhere. It was notorious that the citizens of the United States were known as Americans here; and when he spoke of Americans, he spoke of citizens of the old States of the Union, now in California. He knew no distinction prejudicial to the interests of either. He had attempted to draw none. He spoke of them as a matter of numbers; that the citizens from the old States of the Union formed the majority here, and this Constitution was for the protection of the class forming the minority.

Mr. DIMMICK desired to say that his constituents claimed no protection under the Constitution of California, which was not guarantied to them by the treaty of peace. The question being then taken on the first part of Mr. Gilbert's proposition, the result was as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Aram, Botts, Crosby, Dent, Dimmick, Ellis, Gwin, Gilbert, Hoppe, Hobson, Halleck, Hastings, Hollingsworth, Jones, Larkin, Lippencott, Moore, McCarver, Norton, Ord, Price, Sutter, Snyder, Sherwood, Shannon, Semple, Vallejo, Wozencraft-28.

NAYS-Messrs. Foster, Hill, Reid, Stearns, Pico, Tefft, Carillo, Rodriguez―8.

The question as to there being a quorum present having arisen, and being decided in the negative by the President,

On motion of Mr. DENT, the Convention took a recess for half an hour.

AFTERNOON SESSION, 2 O'CLOCK, p. M.

The Convention met pursuant to adjournment.

The CHAIR remarked that it was desirable to have some known and settled rules for the government of the House. It was not practicable for each member to determine at any time which was the best rule. The House should establish proper regulations, and abide by them. It was true, it had been irregularly organized. The Territory of California was obtained from another government, differing very materially from ours. We were to make something out of nothing; to construct organization and form out of chaos. The object was to produce a good fundamental system of laws; and to accomplish this it was absolutely necessary to adopt some fixed rule of action. All business should be suspended until the house was properly organized. It was now in confusion. By an act of the Convention, it would seem that the number of members was fixed at seventythree; thirty-eight would, therefore, be necessary to form a quorum. It would be

impracticable to alter a decision once made without a quorum. If such action were admissable, five members might proceed to form rules and regulations, and even laws. There appeared to be but one way to get out of the difficulty. By some misunderstanding, it was supposed that by the adoption of the report of the special committee appointed yesterday, the Convention consisted of seventy-three members. This committee was to report the names of the additional delegates duly elected in their respective districts. The journal does not declare what members were duly elected. They were therefore not members of this House until some authority made them so. The journal afforded no evidence of additional action of the Convention on the subject. Under this omission, it was within the power of the House to proceed now and declare who were the duly elected members. He thought the difficulty might be obviated by some course of this kind.

A discussion here arose on the subject of a quorum, and the rules necessary for the action of the House, during which several propositions were offered but not entertained.

On a call of the House, the President declaring a quorum present,

Mr. GWIN moved to reconsider the report of the Committee on Privileges and Elections, and offered the following resolution:

Resolved, That the report of the Select Committee appointed by order of the House to report upon the number of votes received in the several districts by persons who were candidates for seats in this body be adopted; and Hugo Reid, Jacinto Rodriguez, Francis J. Lippitt, A. J. Ellis, R. M. Price, L. W. Hastings, M. McCarver, John McDougal, E. O. Crosby, B. F. Lippincott, B. F. Moore, I. M. Jones, and O. W. Wozencraft, are duly elected and hereby admitted as members of this body.

Adopted, viva voce.

A motion to adjourn having been made

Mr. GWIN said he hoped the House would first dispose of the resolution in regard to the appointment of a Select Committee on the Constitution, in order that it might report some material upon which the Convention could proceed at its next meeting.

Mr. McCARVER moved to amend Mr. Gilbert's amendment to Mr. Gwin's resolution by striking out all after the word "Resolved," and insert the following:

That the Convention do now resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, and take into consideration the Constitution of the State of Iowa, as a basis for the Constitution of California.

Mr. GWIN remarked, that the motion of the gentleman rendered it proper that he should make an explanation. Before he (Mr. Gwin) was elected a member of this Convention, a consideration of very great importance occurred to him-the difficulty that would be encountered during the labors of the Convention from the absence of a printing press. It would be admitted, that it was indispensable that every member should have before him the precise words upon which he was called upon to vote. He had exerted himself to have a press here, but found it imprac. ticable. He then took the responsibility, in consideration of the great public necessity of the case, and after consultation with several members, to print a copy of the Constitution of Iowa, in order that every member might have it before him, and write on the margin any amendment that might occur to him. He had in. tended, if the Committee had been appointed, to have proposed this paper as a basis; and if it met the approval of the Committee, he would then have moved to come into Committee of the Whole. No member would be committed to any part or provision. He had selected the Constitution of Iowa, because it was one of the latest and shortest.

Mr. BOTTS most heartily approved of the suggestion of the gentleman from San Francisco. It placed business before the House at once. As to any particular Constitution, it made no difference. This paper was well printed, and could be taken in hand without further delay. He suggested to the mover of the proposition the propriety of withdrawing the resolution originally offered by him, in order to permit this to go directly before the House.

Mr. GWIN would be glad to do so if it met the wishes of the House. With the consent of his colleague, he would therefore propose to withdraw it.

Mr. GILBERT could not consent to withdraw his amendment.

Mr. SHERWOOD was of opinion that there would be enough to do in discussing propositions consolidated by a Committee, without bringing the whole matter before the Convention at once. It was desirable to have the cream of the wholethe best material of the Constitutions of the thirty States.

Mr. HALLECK asked gentlemen who approved of this idea of taking up an en. tire Constitution in Committee of the Whole, whether from the experience of the Jast few days they considered the whole body better calculated to do business than a small committee.

Mr. GILBERT remarked that, although in introducing his amendment, he did it to avoid the complicated machinery of a number of committees, he did not sup pose any member would be in favor of destroying altogether that principle of legislative action. It was an established usage in legislative bodies, that matters of great importance should come before the House through a committee. This committee must digest the material for the action of the House. He apprehended that when the report of the proposed committee came up for consideration, there would be enough amendments, propositions, and debates to satisfy all. He was opposed to adopting any one constitution as a basis, unless it came through a committee. Let this committee take all the constitutions and report what they deemed best. Each member could then, in Committee of the Whole, propose such amendments as he thought proper. It appeared to him that there was no other judicious mode of proceeding.

Mr. GWIN said there was still one difficulty. He was not opposed to a commit. tee where there were ordinary facilities, but he wanted to know what was to be done with the report of this committee? Were the members to act upon one copy of the report? It was impossible for business to progress this way. If there was a printing press it would be the proper course, but no deliberative body, within his knowledge, ever passed a measure without first having it laid before each member for his examination.

Mr. GILBERT thought the gentleman overrated the difficulty of getting copies of this report for the use of the members. It would possibly consist of not more than half a page at a time, which could be copied by the clerks.

Mr. DIMMICK did not see how business could be expedited by adopting, as a basis, the Constitution of Iowa. It would have to be translated into Spanish, and a sufficient number of copies made for those who only spoke that language. If, on the other hand, the committee reported, article by article, a plan of a Constitu. tion, it could be translated, copied, and laid upon the tables of the members at the opening of each day's session. He approved of Mr. Gilbert's resolution.

Mr. BOTTS would like to know how the House could understandingly vote upon a particular section, when it was ignorant of what was to follow. Nothing appeared to him more impolitic than the introduction, by piecemeal, of sections upon which others, behind, might be dependent. All must be acted upon together. A section, objectionable in itself, in one part of the Constitution, might, in another, be made beneficial.

Mr. PRICE said there seemed to be great difficulty in the minds of gentlemen in relation to the mode of getting to work at the business of making a Constitution. He had a resolution which he thought would be acceptable to the House. He hoped it would also be satisfactory to his colleague, (Mr. Gilbert.)

Resolved, That a Select Committee, composed of one delegate from each district, be appointed by the President, to report upon the best mode of proceeding to make a State Constitution, for the action of this body.

Mr. GILBERT preferred that the question should come at once between Mr. Gwin's resolution and his own. As to the difficulty referred to by gentlemen in relation to reporting, from time to time, different portions of a Constitution, it was

1