light or other light, and fresh water, or either, shall furnish the same, so far as necessary and required, free and without charge, to all public buildings, institutions, and school houses belonging to such city, and used for municipal purposes; and such company introducing and supplying water shall also furnish the same, free and without charge, to the Fire Department, and for the extinguishment of fires. Each company, its property and franchise, shall be liable to such city and its inhabitants for the performance of these conditions. SEC. 24. In counties or cities having more than one hundred thousand inhabitants no person shall, at the same time, be a State officer and a city or county officer, nor hold two city or county offices. show them that this host of attachés are entirely unnecessary. We can MR. BARNES. I desire to say now THE PRESIDENT. The motion is not debatable. The ayes and noes were demanded by Messrs. Barnes, Casserly, Freud, Edgerton, and Walker, of Tuolumne. The roll was called, and the resolution was laid on the table by the following vote: SEC. 25. No public work or improvement of any description whatsoever shall be made or done, in any city, in, upon, or about the streets thereof, or otherwise, the cost and expense of which is made chargeable or may be assessed upon private property by special assessment, unless an estimate of such cost and expense shall be made, and an assessment in proportion to benefits, on the property to be affected or benefited, and shall be collected and paid into the city treasury before such work or improvement shall be commenced, or any contract for letting or doing Barry, the same authorized or performed. Andrews, Barbour, Barton, SEC. 26. The Legislature shall not pass any local or special law in Boucher, the cases following: Regulating the affairs of counties, cities, towns, townships, wards, City or County Boards of Education, school districts, or other political or municipal corporation or subdivision of the State; Authorizing the laying out, opening, altering, maintaining, or vacating Incorporating cities, towns, or villages, or changing their charters; Creating offices, or prescribing the powers and duties of officers in counties, cities, towns, townships, or school districts; Regulating the fees or extending the powers and duties of county or municipal officers; Regulating the management and maintenance of public schools, the building or repairing of School or Court Houses, and raising of money for such purposes; Brown, Heiskell, AYES. Herrington, Holmes, Nelson, Noel, Ohleyer, Prouty, Schomp, Shoemaker, Hughey, Hunter, Inman, Burt, Jones, Campbell, Joyce, Kelley, Keyes, Kleine, Larkin, McCallum, McComas, Weller, Farrell, Gregg, Mills, Wickes, White, Extending the time for the assessment or collection of county, city, or other municipal taxes, or otherwise relieving any Assessor or Collector of Harrison, county or city taxes from the due performance of the official duties, or their securities from liability; Legalizing the unauthorized or invalid acts of any officer or agent of Barnes, any county or municipality thereof; Directing the payment of money out of the treasury, or by any officer, of any county, city, or town, without the consent of such county, city, and town; Directing the payment of money from out of the treasury, or by any officer of, or creating any liability against, a county, city, town, or any public or municipal corporation, without its consent. MR. HAGER. I ask that the usual number be printed. Belcher, Boggs, Caples, Dudley, of Solano, MR. HAGER. I move that the usual number, four hundred and Edgerton, eighty copies, be printed. So ordered. SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT. Finney, Freud, MR. HAGER. I have another report from the committee, which is Hall, very short. THE SECRETARY read: The Committee on City, County, and Township Organizations have had under consideration a number of petitions and memorials, asking that the following proposition be inserted in the new Constitution, to wit: "SECTION. The Legislature shall, at its first session, enact a law whereby the qualified voters of any county, voting precinct, town, or city, by a majority vote, from time to time, may determine whether the sale of intoxicating liquors shall be prohibitied within the prescribed limits." And the committee being equally divided in opinion at the time it was considered in the presence of eight members thereof, instruct me to report the petitions and memorials back, with the recommendation that the above proposition be committed to the Committee of the Whole for further consideration and action. Respectfully submitted. Lewis, McFarland, O'Sullivan, Rhodes, Shurtleff, Smith, of 4th District, Stevenson, Walker, of Tuolumne, Porter, Reddy, Reed, Reynolds, ADJOURNMENT. MR. MURPHY. I move we adjourn. THE PRESIDENT. The question is on the motion to adjourn. MR. HOWARD, of Los Angeles. I move we now adjourn until Monday, at two o'clock. The ayes and noes were demanded by Messrs. Stedman, Hunter, Larkin, Murphy, and Barbour. The roll was called, and the motion lost by the following vote: WHEREAS, The appropriation for the expenses of this Convention is now nearly exhausted, and the session is likely to be prolonged to the limit expressed in the Act of the Legislature convening this body, and perhaps beyond it; Resolved, That when payments from said appropriation shall reduce the balance in the State treasury to the sum of seven thousand dollars, the President be and he is hereby directed not to certify any payroll for the per diem of raembers, and that said unexpended balance be reserved exclusively to the expenses of the Convention, other than per diem of members, and to the payment of salaries and wages of employés. MR. BARNES. Mr. President: That resolution sufficiently explains itself. Now, as far as we are concerned, we are bound to stay here, pay or no pay, until the work shall have been accomplished. As far as the employés are concerned, there is no such contract, or obligation on their part, expressed or implied, and I think we ought to reserve a certain amount of the appropriation for their benefit. I think "the laborer is worthy of his hire." Casserly, Keyes, Lampson, McFarland, McNutt, NOES. Davis, Dean, Doyle, Dunlap, Estey, Evey, Hunter, Farrell, Inman, Andrews, MR. WHITE. I trust the resolution will not pass. If the employés Condon, are not willing to continue their work, I think we can get along very well Cross, without them, and by so doing we will set an example to the State, and | Crouch. McComas, McConnell, Neunaber, Ohleyer, Gorman, Prouty, NOES. Van Voorhies, Walker, of Tuolumne, Weller, West, Mr. President-63. Schomp, Smith, of 4th District, Stevenson, Waters, THE JOURNAL. MR. CAPLES. I move that the reading of the Journal be dispensed with, and the same approved. So ordered. RESOLUTION REGARDING A CHINESE MEMORIAL. Resolved, That a committee of three be appointed by the Chair to draft petitions to be forwarded by this Convention to the Governors of Oregon, Nevada, and Washington Territory, requesting their Exceliencies to memorialize the President of the United States and the Senate, on behalf of their States and Territory, for a modification of the Burlingame treaty, now existing between the Chinese Empire and the Republic of the United States of America. THE PRESIDENT. The question is on the adoption of the resolution. CHINESE IMMIGRATION. The Convention took up the special order for the day-the report of the Committee on Chinese, which was as follows: ARTICLE Webster, SEC. 2. Any corporation incorporated by or under the laws of this State, or doing business in this State, shall forfeit its franchises, and all legal rights thereunder, if it ever employs, in any capacity whatever, foreigners who are not eligible to become citizens of the United States under the laws of Congress. This section shall be enforced by appropriate legislation. SEC. 3. No alien ineligible to become a citizen of the United States shall ever be employed on any State, county, municipal, or other public work in this State after the adoption of this Constitution. SEC. 4. All further immigration to this State of Chinese, and all other persons ineligible to become citizens of the United States under the naturalization laws thereof, is hereby prohibited. The Legislature shall provide for the enforcement of this section by appropriate legislation. SEC. 5. No person who is not eligible to become a citizen of the United States shall be permitted to settle in this State after the adoption of this Constitution. SEC. 6. Foreigners ineligible to become citizens of the United States shall not have the right to sue or be sued in any of the Courts of this State, and any lawyer appearing for or against them, or any of them, in a civil proceeding, shall forfeit his license to practice law. No such foreigner shall be granted license to carry on any, business, trade, or occupation in this State, nor shall such license be granted to any person or corporation employing them. No such foreigner shall have the right oppose any part of this report. It was upon this consideration we all to catch fish in any of the waters under the jurisdiction of the State; agreed and consented to make the report from the majority of the comnor to purchase, own, or lease real property in this State; and all con-mittee. My action in this respect has been misunderstood. I consented tracts of conveyance or lease of real estate to any such foreigner shall be because I thought it was better that all these plans, all these provisions void. touching the Chinese question, should come in together and be considered at once in this Convention. And as it is a question not susceptible of division, I shall, in the brief remarks I have to make, consider the whole of this report together. SEC. 7. The presence of foreigners ineligible to become citizens of the United States is declared hereby to be dangerous to the well being of the State, and the Legislature shall discourage their immigration by all the means within its power. It shall provide for their exclusion from residence or settlement in any portion of the State it may see fit, or from the State, and provide suitable methods, by their taxation, or otherwise, for the expense of such exclusion. It shall prescribe suitable penalties for the punishment of persons convicted of introducing them within forbidden limits. It shall delegate all necessary power to the incorporated cities and towns of this State for their removal without the limits of such cities and towns. SEC. 8. Public officers within this State are forbidden to employ Chinese in any capacity whatever. Violation of this provision shall be ground for removal from office; and no person shall be eligible to any office in this State who, at the time of election and for three months before, employed Chinese. The first plan proceeds upon the theory that the State has not within itself the power to prohibit Chinese immigration. It proposes to deal with these people as a part of the population of the State, after they have once mingled with our people and become a part of the people. The Government of the United States, under the Constitution, has the power to regulate commerce, both foreign and inter-State, and the Supreme Court of the United States has decided that the power is vested exclusively in the General Government. The States, while they have the power to regulate internal affairs of the State, to prescribe rules and laws for the government of the people of the State-in short, while the State exercises home rule, still there is above and beyond the State a national sovereignty which deals with all these subjects, treaties between nations, intercourse with foreign nations, foreign commerce, and navigation. Whatever may be done under the first section, must be tion, or government of the people of a State which has not been delegated to the Government of the United States, and which has been reserved to the State, or the people of the State. SEC. 9. The exercise of the right of suffrage shall be denied to any person employing Chinese in this State, and it shall be a sufficient chal-done under the police power of the State-that power of local regulalenge that the person offering to vote is employing Chinese, or has employed them within three months next preceding the election. MR. TINNIN. Mr. President: I move that the Convention now resolve itself into Committee of the Whole, the President in the chair, for the purpose of considering the report of the Committee on Chinese. Carried. IN COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE. THE CHAIRMAN. The report of the Committee on Chinese is now ing from contagious or infectious diseases, and we hold that the State has before the committee. The Secretary will read the first section. THE SECRETARY read section one, as follows: SECTION 1. The Legislature shall have and shall exercise the power to enact all needful laws, and prescribe necessary regulations for the protection of the State and the counties, cities, and towns thereof, from the burdens and evils arising from the presence of aliens who are or who may become vagrants, paupers, mendicants, criminals, or invalids afflicted with contagious or infectious diseases, and aliens otherwise dangerous or detrimental to the well-being or peace of the State, and to impose conditions upon which such persons may reside in the State, and to provide the means and mode of their removal from the State upon failure or refusal to comply with such conditions; provided, that nothing contained in the foregoing shall be construed to impair or limit the power of the Legislature to pass such other police laws or regula-In some sense it is a system of banishment of these people, as a punishtions as it may deem necessary. MR. LARKIN. I would like to have a decision as to how this discussion is to be carried on. Will the debate be confined to the section under consideration, or will it range over the whole thing? I would like a decision on that point before we proceed. THE CHAIRMAN. The debate will extend over the entire report. Under the rule each section has to be read. have understood. MR. AYERS. The Chairman of the committee is not in the hall, THE CHAIRMAN. The first section is under consideration. The Secretary will read it again. THE SECRETARY read: It is believed by the committee that the State has the power to protect itself against foreign and well known dangerous classes-classes that are admitted by all people to be dangerous and detrimental to the well being of the State, such as paupers, vagrants, criminals, persons sufferpower to exclude these under the law of self-preservation, which is the first law of the State. That it does not interfere with foreign commerce to exercise this power. We propose, under this section, that the Legislature shall have power to enforce the details for executing this plan. We propose that tribunals shall be established, such as the established Courts, before whom persons alleged to be paupers or criminals may be brought for trial. If it shall be found upon examination that they belong to any one of these classes, we propose that a place shall be established in San Francisco for the safe keeping of those persons until they can be removed from the State. We propose, as to the criminal classes of Chinese, that, instead of being incarcerated in prison at the expense of the State, upon conviction, the Legislature shall empower the Courts to remand them to this place, to be afterwards removed from the State. ment for crime. It was proposed that the State might impose conditions upon their residence; that is, a bond might be required that a party, under examination, will not become a charge upon the State, that he will not be a pauper, criminal, vagrant, or an inmate of any charitable institution maintained by the State. This is a condition of his residence in the State. Now, the State has attempted, on several occasions, to legislate upon this subject of Chinese immigration. It has exercised the power of taxation to discourage Chinese residence, and our Supreme Court has decided that those acts imposing a capitation tax were unconIstitutional. It has also passed laws authorizing the Commissioners of Immigration to go on board of vessels and make examinations of the Chinese passengers for the purpose of excluding the dangerous classes, and more particularly as applied to lewd women. The Supreme Court of the United States has decided that these acts are unconstitutional. In every effort which the State has made to prevent and restrict this immigration it has been met by a constitutional objection, and these acts have been declared unconstitutional. vessels. SECTION 1. The Legislature shall have and shall exercise the power to enact all needful laws, and prescribe necessary regulations for the protection of the State, and the counties, cities, and towns thereof, from the burdens and evils arising from the presence of aliens, who are or The first section proceeds upon a different plan. We do not in that who may become vagrants, paupers, mendicants, criminals, or invalids section attempt to interfere with commerce. We do not go on board of afflicted with contagious or infectious diseases, and aliens otherwise We take these people after they have once become a part of our dangerous or detrimental to the well-being or peace of the State, and to population, and subject to the laws of the State. impose conditions upon which such persons may reside in the State, ous classes of persons, I shall submit some authorities. I shall first read Now, as to the power of the State to protect itself against the dangerand to provide the means and mode of their removal from the State upon failure or refusal to comply with such conditions; provided, that a decision in what is known as the Passenger Cases, page 125, 7th Hownothing contained in the foregoing shall be construed to impair or limitard, U. S. Sup. Court Reports: the power of the Legislature to pass such other police laws or regula-territories paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice. But they "The States have also reserved the police right to turn off from their tions as it may deem necessary. SPEECH OF MR. MILLER. MR. MILLER. Mr. Chairman: It is expected by a great majority of the people of California, that this Convention will take some decisive action in respect to what is regarded by the people of this State as a great increasing and expanding evil in this country-the introduction and presence of large numbers of Chinese. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, to be compelled to state that the committee to whom was referred this question, was not able to agree upon any definite plan to be adopted by the State for the extirpation of this evil. The committee found, directly after the discussion began, that its members were divided in opinion in respect to the measures that should be adopted. There was no division of opinion in respect to the character of this immigration, or upon its effects upon the country. All agreed that Chinese immigration was an evil, and that if possible the further influx of Chinese to this country should be stopped. But we differed in the measures which were to be adopted for remedying this evil. A report was made by a majority of the committee, but instead of devising or presenting a concise plan for adoption by the State, we presented three distinct plans. Now, while a majority of the committee were in favor of one or the other of these plans, it cannot be said that all the members of that majority were in favor of any of the plans, except the one embraced in the first section of the article. That section was agreed upon unanimously. But it was reserved to every member of the committee in Convention to support or have not reserved the use of taxation universally to accomplish that object, as they had it before they became the United States. Having surrendered to the United States the sovereign police power over commerce, to be exercised by Congress, or the treaty-making power, it is necessarily a part of the power of the United States to determine who shall come to and reside in the United States for the purpose of trade, independently of every other condition of admittance which the State may attempt to impose upon such persons. When it is done in either way, the United States, of course, subject the foreigners to the laws of the United States, and cannot exempt him from the internal power of police of the States in any particular in which it is not constitutionally in conflict with the laws of the United States. And in this sense it is that, in treaties providing for such mutual admission of foreigners between nations, it is universally said, 'But subject always to the laws and statutes of the two countries respectively; but certainly not to such of the laws of a State as would exclude the foreigner, or would add another consideration to his admission into the United States.' "And, further, I may here remark that this right of taxation claimed for the States upon foreign passengers is inconsistent with the naturalization clause in the Constitution, and the laws of Congress regulating it. If a State can, by taxation, or otherwise, direct upon what terms foreigners may come into it, it may defeat the whole and long cherished policy of this country, and of the Constitution, in respect to immigrants coming to the United States. "As already indicated, the provisions of the Constitution of the United States, on which the principal reliance is placed to make void the statute of New York, is that which gives to Congress the power 'to vs. Halliday, 3 Wall. 417: Commerce with foreign nations means commerce between citizens of the United States and citizens and subjects of foreign governments.' It means trade, and it means intercourse. It means commercial intercourse between nations, and parts of nations, in all its branches. It includes navigation as the principal means by which foreign intercourse is effected. To regulate this trade and intercourse is to prescribe the rules by which it shall be conducted. The mind,' says the great Chief Justice, can scarcely conceive a system for regulating commerce between nations which shall be silent on the admission of the vessels of one nation into the ports of another;' and he might have added, with equal force, which prescribed no terms for the admission of their cargo or their passengers." (Gibbons vs. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 190.) "But I have said the States have the right to turn off paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice, and the States where slaves are, have a constitutional right to exclude all such as are, from a common ancestry or country, of the same class of men. And when Congress shall legis-regulate commerce with foreign nations.' As we said in United States late-if it be not disrespectful for one who is a member of the judiciary to suppose so absurd a thing of another department of government-to make paupers, vagabonds, suspected persons, and fugitives from justice subjects of admission into the United States, I do not doubt it will be found and declared that such persons are not within the regulating power which the United States has over commerce. Paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives never have been subjects of rightful national intercourse, or of commercial regulations, except in the transportation of them to distant colonies to get rid of them, or for punishment as convicts. They have no rights of national intercourse; no one has the right to transport them without the authority of the law, from where they are to any other place, and their only rights where they may be, are such as the law gives to all men who have not altogether forfeited its protection. "The States may meet such persons upon their arrival in port, and may put them under all proper restraints. They may prevent them from entering their territories, may carry them out or drive them off. But can such a police power be rightfully exercised over those who are not paupers, vagabonds, or fugitives from justice? The international right of visitation forbids it. The freedom of liberty of commerce allowed by all European nations to the inhabitants of other nations does not permit it; and the constitutional obligations of the States of this Union to the United States, in regard to commerce and navigation and naturalization, have qualified the original discretion of the States as to who shall come and live in the United States." Further on Mr. Justice Miller says: "A law or rule emanating from any lawful authority, which prescribes terms or conditions on which alone the vessel can discharge its passengers, is a regulation of commerce; and, in case of vessels and passengers coming from foreign ports, is a regulation of commerce with foreign nations." He further says: 66 "The accuracy of these definitions is scarcely denied by the advocates of the State statutes. But assuming that in the formation of our government certain power necessary to the administration of their internal affairs are reserved to the States, and that among these powers are those for the preservation of good order, of the health and comfort of the citizens, and their protection against pauperism and contagious and infectious diseases, and other matters of legislation of like character, they I will now read a brief extract to the same effect, from the opinion of insist that the power here exercised falls within this class, and belongs Mr. Justice Grier, in the same case, 7th Howard, 450: "It must be borne rightfully to the State. in mind (what has sometimes been forgotten) that the controversy in This power, frequently referred to in the decisions of this Court, has this case, is not with regard to the right claimed by the State of Massa-been, in general terms, somewhat loosely called the police power. It is chusetts, in the second section of this Act, to repel from her shores not necessary for the course of this discussion to attempt to define it lunatics, idiots, criminals, or paupers, which any foreign country, or more accurately than it has been defined already. It is not necessary, even one of her sister States might endeavor to thrust upon her; nor because whatever may be the nature and extent of that power, where the right of any State, whose domestic security might be endangered by not otherwise restricted, no definition of it and no urgency for its use the admission of free negroes, to exclude them from her borders. The can authorize a State to exercise it in regard to a subject-matter which right of the State has its foundation in the sacred law of self-defense, has been confided exclusively to the discretion of Congress by the Con-which no power granted to Congress can restrict or annul. It is admitted stitution." by all, that those powers which relate merely to municipal legislation, or what may be more properly called internal police, are not surrendered or restrained; and that it is as competent and necessary for a State to provide precautionary measures against the physical pestilence which may arise from unusual and infectious articles imported." Now, these were cases in which the State of New York and the State of Massachusetts attempted to impose a tax upon passengers arriving from foreign countries; that is, they first attempted to require a bond from the master of the vessel that such parties should not become a charge upon the State. The Act provides that they might go on board the ship, take a list of passengers, see who they were and where they came from, exact a bond from the master of the vessel in the sum of five hundred dollars that these people should not become a government Again, in the case of Chi Lung vs. Freeman et al., 2 Otto, 279, charge. In lieu of a bond it provided that they might accept a tax of the Court held the same doctrine. This was a case sent up from San one dollar and fifty cents from each passenger. The Court decided that Francisco, where the person had been arrested on board the vessel, this was a restriction of commerce, and therefore contrary to the Con-under the statute against the landing of lewd women. Says the Court: stitution of the United States and void. The opinions I have just read "We are not called upon to decide for or against the right of a State, go to the extent of giving the State power to protect itself against pau- in the absence of legislation by Congress, to protect herself by necessary pers, vagrants, and criminals. The second plan presented here in this and proper laws against paupers and convicted criminals from abroad, report goes to the extent of compelling prohibition of Chinese immi-nor to lay down the definite limit of such right if it exists. Such a gration. right can only arise from a vital necessity for its exercise, and cannot be carried beyond the scope of that necessity. When a State statute, limited to provisions necessary and appropriate to that object alone, shall, in a proper controversy, come before us, it will be time enough to decide that question. The statute of California goes so far beyond what is necessary, or even appropriate for this purpose, as to be wholly without any sound definition of the right under which it is supposed to be justified." The section which embraces it is as follows: Chief Justice Marshall, in a case reported, 9 Wheat. 210, says "that it has been contended that if a law passed by a State, in the exercise of its acknowledged sovereignty, comes into conflict with a law passed by Congress in pursuance of the Constitution, they affect the subject and each other like equal opposing powers. But the framers of the Constitution foresaw this state of things, and provided for it by declaring the supremacy not only of itself but of the laws made in pursuance thereof. The nullity of any act inconsistent with the Constitution is produced by the declaration that the Constitution is supreme. When the Federal Government has acted, he says: In every such case the Act of Congress or the treaty is supreme, and the laws of the State, though enacted in the exercise of power not controverted, must yield to it.” There is one more decision I desire to read, which illustrates the views of the Supreme Court of the United States upon this subject of the State protecting herself against paupers, vagrants, and others. In the case of "Railroad Company vs. Husen," the Court said: "All further immigration to this State of Chinese, and all other persons ineligible to become citizens of the United States under the naturalization laws thereof, is hereby prohibited. The Legislature shall provide for the enforcement of this section by appropriate legislation." That is a separate and distinct plan from the other. And if we could-if the State had the power to enforce such a prohibition, it would certainly end the Chinese question at once. But I take the ground that the State has no such power. I think it is impolitic and unwise for us, at this time, to take any such position. The United States is a nation, and California is not a nation. It is not in the power of California to seal up the Golden Gate, and declare, virtually, there We are thus brought to the question whether the Missouri statute is shall be no intercourse with foreign nations. Commercial intercourse, of a lawful exercise of the police power of the State. We admit that the every species and character, is a matter in which all the people of all deposit in Congress of the power to regulate foreign commerce and comthe States are interested, and it is not in the power of any State to pass merce among the States was not a surrender of that which may be proplaws nullifying the Acts of Congress, or the treaties made in pursuance erly denominated police power. What that power is, it is difficult to of the Constitution, regulating commerce or intercourse with foreign | define with sharp precision. It is generally said to extend to making nations; and I may say here, that I consider this too plain for argument, regulations promotive of domestic order, morals, health, and safety. As and I would not argue it were it not that some distinguished gentlemen was said in Thorpe vs. The Rutland and Burlington Railroad Company, on this floor have taken the position that the State has this power, and 27 Vermont, 149, it extends to the protection of the lives, limbs, they appeared before the committee and made arguments which con-health, comfort, and quiet of all persons, and the protection of ali propvinced a majority of the committee that the State of California had the erty within the State.' It was further said, that, by the general police power to seal up the Golden Gate, and stop the Chinese. If this State power of the State, persons and property are subjected to all kinds of has the power to interfere with commerce to the extent of prohibiting restraints and burdens, in order to secure the general comfort, health, the subjects of China from entering the ports of the United States, and prosperity of the State-of the perfect right of the Legislature to do within the State of California, then the State of New York has the power which, no question ever was, or, upon acknowledged general principles, to close the ports of the United States, within that State, against the ever can be made, so far as natural persons are concerned.' It may also citizens of France or England. Neither the Constitution of the United be admitted that the police- powers of a State justifies the adoption of States nor the treaties with foreign powers make distinction between the precautionary measures against social evils. Under it a State may legiscitizens or subjects of nations, with whom the United States are at peace, late to prevent the spread of crime, or pauperism, or disturbance of the and with whom there are treaty obligations in respect to commerce, navi-peace. It may exclude from its limits convicts, paupers, idiots, and gation, and the right of residence in the respective countries. I will now lunatics, and persons likely to become a public charge, as well as perread brief extracts from the opinion of the Court in the case of Hendersons afflicted by contagious or infectious diseases-a right founded, as son vs. Mayor of New York et al., 2d Otto, 269, delivered by Mr. Justice intimated, in the passenger case, by Mr. Justice Greer, in the sacred law Miller, United States Supreme Court. The Court says: of self-defense. (Vide 3 Sawyer, 283.) The same principle, it may also # be conceded, would justify the exclusion of property dangerous to the or from the State, and provide suitable methods, by their taxation or otherwise, for the expense of such exclusion. It shall prescribe suitable penalties for the punishment of persons convicted of introducing them within forbidden limits. Shall delegate all necessary power to the incorporated cities and towns of this State for their removal without the limits of such cities and towns. "SEC. 8. Public officers within this State are forbidden to employ Chinese in any capacity whatever. Violation of this provision shall be ground for removal from office; and no person shall be eligible to any office in this State who, at the time of election and for three months before, employed Chinese. "SEC. 9. The exercise of the right of suffrage shall be denied to any person employing Chinese in this State, and it shall be a sufficient challenge that the person offering to vote is employing Chinese, or has employed them within three months next preceding the election.” These sections proceed upon the same theory, and form together a plan for dealing with the Chinese evil. This plan is directed to the employment of Chinese, to the denial of their right to the protection of the law. I do not propose to discuss it, but I characterize it as a plan of starvation by constitutional provision. If the Chinese are not to be employed by anybody, are not permitted to labor, they cannot live. Because by labor all must live, and if you deprive them of the right to labor, they must starve. That is the logical sequence of the position assumed by the advocates of this prohibition against the labor of these people. It is indefensible, for it deprives the prohibited people of the right of life. I hold that the right to labor is as high and sacred a right as the right to live. That you cannot deprive these people of this right under the treaty with China. That it is against the spirit of the age, against all laws of civilized communities. But this third plan goes still further, it strikes at the liberty of the citizens of the United States, who, as citizens, have the right to employ whoever they choose. I hold that you cannot abridge that right. It is one of the inalienable rights of American citizens. I do not care to discuss these four sections, but shall content myself by saying that I opposed them in the committee, and shall vote against them here. Now, as to the effect of this first section, it was said that the proposed measure does not go far enough. My answer is, it goes just as far as the State can go. It goes to the very verge of constitutional power, and the State cannot go any further. It is said that it will have no effect. I think that it will have a very marked effect. As I said in the beginning, the power to prohibit Chinese immigration rests entirely with the General Government, and this section is only in aid of such restrictive laws as the General Government may see fit to pass. Its effect will be to rid ourselves of the Chinese already here, to some extent, if not to the full extent, because it only relieves us of a certain class of the Chinese. Let us look for a moment at the benefits which will flow from laws passed in pursuance of this section. It is said, and we all know it to be a fact, that the great body of the Chinese immigrants to this State come from the southern and eastern provinces of China, along the seashore. That they are recruited largely from the criminal classes. Men who hang about the sea and rivers, living in boats. A sort of pirates, many of them, and all of them, or nearly all of them, thieves and bad men generally. Now, a very large proportion of the Chinese who came to California under labor contracts are of the criminal classes-a fact which we find illustrated in the criminal Courts of the State. I have here a letter from the County Clerk of San Francisco, dated November seventh, in reply to a letter of inquiry which I addressed to him. He says: We have seen the evil of this in former times, and when a proud State like the State of California takes such a step, it is difficult to retrace it. Should we once declare that we intended to check immigration ourselves, without regard to the Federal Government, and against its power, we For the twelve months ending October thirty-first, eighteen hunwould be asserting the supremacy of the State over the National Gov-dred and seventy-eight, two thousand four hundred and eighty-eight ernment. It would be attempting to nullify the Acts of Congress and Chinese have been arrested, tried, and convicted in the various Courts the treaties of the General Government. I say it is dangerous to take of this city and county, of different crimes. Number of Chinese confined such a step. The State of South Carolina began in this way-began in the City Prison yesterday, November sixth, one hundred and fourby attempting to nullify the Acts of Congress. It began by asserting the teen; number of Chinese confined in County Jail yesterday, November doctrine of State supremacy, and went on, step by step, until it found sixth, one hundred and fifty-four." itself in actual open rebellion and war against the government. I cannot give my assent to any measure which would place California in rebellion against the authority of the United States. It has been said we must do something in order to convince the people that we are in earnest; that we must assert some principle, must pass some laws, to show that California is determined to extirpate this evil. It is thought by some that by such a course we would awaken interest in the subject in the Eastern States. But this style of argument is delusive. The people of the Eastern States will awaken to this subject in due time. We must convince them by argument. Assertion will not effect anything; declamation will not effect anything. A wild, spasmodic assertion of State supremacy will make California ridiculous. We must give the Eastern people facts and arguments to show that Chinese immigration is a great and threatening evil, not alone to the State of California, but to the whole Union. Now, there is a third plan contained in the report, which is embraced in sections six, seven, eight, and nine, as follows: "SEC. 6. Foreigners ineligible to become citizens of the United States shall not have the right to sue or be sued in any of the Courts of this State, and any lawyer appearing for or against them, or any of them, in a civil proceeding, shall forfeit his license to practice law. No such foreigner shall be granted license to carry on any business, trade, or occupation in this State, nor shall such license be granted to any person or corporation employing them. No such foreigner shall have the right to catch fish in any of the waters under the jurisdiction of the State; nor to purchase, own, or lease real property in this State, and all contracts of conveyance or lease of real estate to any such foreigner shall be void. "SEC. 7. The presence of foreigners ineligible to become citizens of the United States is declared herein to be dangerous to the well-being of the State, and the Legislature shall discourage their immigration by all the means within its power. It shall provide for their exclusion from residence or settlement in any portion of the State it may see fit, My proposition is to regard those who are convicted of crimes in our Courts as belonging to the criminal class; that conviction of crime in our Courts shall be conclusive evidence that they did belong to the criminal classes in China, and we propose, under this section, to remove them from the State. I hold that it will be cheaper to remove them from the State than to confine them in our prisons. They can be sent back to China for fifteen or twenty dollars each, by the State. I do not propose in all cases that they must necessarily be sent back to China. My proposition goes only to this, that they shall be removed from the State. If the people over on the Eastern side will not hear our complaints; if they say this is not an evil, and that the Chinese are as good as any other class of immigrants-that we are making a great noise and confusion about nothing-let us send over four, or five, or ten thousand of these people-those who are dangerous to the well-being of the State-belonging to the criminal and diseased classes; let us send them a brigade or two of these Chinamen, and see how they like them. There would be no surer way of changing their views upon the Chinese question. There are two hundred and thirty-four Chinese now in the State Penitentiary-thirteen are for life. Thirty-eight of these are for the second, third, fourth, and fifth times. I have here a statement from Governor Johnson, in reply to a letter of inquiry addressed to him. He gives: "Arson, first degree, one; assault, with deadly weapon, two; attempt at burglary, thirteen; burglary, forty; burglary, first degree, forty-two; burglary, second degree, thirty-nine; felony, nine; grand larceny, forty-one; kidnaping, one; murder, three; murder, first degree, eight; murder, second degree, eleven; manslaughter, five; rape, one; robbery, four; petit larceny, second offense, three." I have made an estimate from the best sources of information I could get, and I find that we could at least send out of the State, of these dangerous and burdensome classes, not less than five thousand Chinese every year. And I hold that we can do it at less expense than we could keep them here in prison and hospitals. I hold also, that the State has the power to do it. Certainly it would be right and just, and it would |