I am not aware, Mr. President, what position Mr. Hallidie holds in connection with the University, if any. I suppose some connection with the land grant MR. AYERS. He is President of the Mechanics Institute. MR. WYATT. Yes. The telegram to which I referred in the discussion on the twenty-second instant, with reference to the State University, is to be found in the Chronicle of January twenty-first, under the head of "Washington Telegrams," and reads as follows: "Davis (by request). A bill to permit the University of California to purchase of the government, at the usual rates, forty thousand acres of public lands which have been selected in its behalf, but not allowed, in addition to the one hundred and fifty thousand acres granted by the It appears that the land agent having the subject in government. charge has overrun the limit, so as to select, on behalf of the University, one hundred and ninety-two thousand acres; and this is an attempt to legalize what is believed by some officials in the Land Office to be a great land grant. Davis introduced the bill by request, as he delays assuming the responsibility till after consultation with the authorities at the University." In the discussion of this subject, on the twenty-second instant, the position which I took with reference to this matter was that it would be dangerous for this Convention to adopt section ten, as reported by the Committee on Education, because its adoption included all the acts of the University of the State of California by its Regents, and all the Acts of the Legislature, and that to do so would be a dangerous and unheard of proceeding, and that it might involve the State of California in a large law suit. I referred to this telegram as a part of the current history of the day, and it then made an impression upon my mind, from its reading, that it had been introduced at the request of the University, and I believe it will convey that impression to the minds of all readers. If the bill was not introduced at the request of the University, then it has been introduced at the request of some men who are making a cat'spaw of the University for the purpose of private peculation. Now, the communication of Mr. Hallidie says that "the proposition was discussed by the Regents present." How many Regents were present is not stated in the communication-whether one, two, three, or more. Whether THE CHAIR. There being a quorum present, and there being no those that were not present caused this to be introduced is not stated. In objection, we will be considered in Committee of the Whole again. IN COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE. THE CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion of the gentleman from San Bernardino, Mr. Rolfe, that the committee rise, report the article back, and recommend its indefinite postponement. The motion prevailed, on a division, by a vote of 48 ayes to 34 noes. IN CONVENTION. Mr. McCallum in the chair. THE CHAIR. Gentlemen: The Committee of the Whole has had under consideration the article on labor and capital, report the same back, and recommend its indefinite postponement. The report of the Committee of the Whole will go on file. MR. O'SULLIVAN. I move to take up the report of the Committee on Miscellaneous Subjects. MR. BEERSTECHER. I understand that the report has been sent to the printer; that it is not yet printed, and the manuscript is in the hands of the printer. Consequently there is no report of the Miscellaneous Committee here. MR. O'SULLIVAN. I withdraw the motion. Mr. President: I move that the Convention take a recess until two o'clock to-day. QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE. MR. WYATT. Mr. President: I rise to a question of privilege. In yesterday's Bulletin there appears, under the head of "The University Land Grant," the following: THE CHAIR. I suppose this is not in order. A motion to adjourn until two o'clock is pending. MR. MCFARLAND. I will withdraw the motion for the present, with the consent of the Convention. MR. WYATT. The communication I refer to reads as follows: EDITOR BULLETIN: Permit me through your journal to correct what would seem to be an erroneous statement of the amounts of land sold by the Regents on account of the Congressional grant of one hundred and fifty thousand acres, during the debates in the Convention. January twenty-second, in which it is admitted that the Regents have sold land in excess of the grant of one hundred and fifty thousand acres. The following statement, made by a special committee of the Board of Regents, in an interview in December last, with General Williamson, Commissioner of the General Land Office, will show the true status of the grant: Number of acres listed Certificates of purchase issued (listing asked for). Total... 140,475.96 other words, it is left as loose and vague as possible, as to what is the action of the University upon this subject, in connection with these bills introduced into the Congress of the United States. On the twenty-second a telegram appears in the same paper, under the same head, which says: Davis has written to the Regents of the University of California in regard to the bill validating the location of lands in addition to its grant of one hundred and fifty thousand acres, and will not press the bill till an answer is received. It is not likely the bill will pass. Then in the Record-Union of January 25th is to be found the following telegram: WASHINGTON, D. C., January 22, 1879. Register and Receiver Stockton Land Office: You will neither receive nor file in your office any further selections on account of any grant to the State of California. J. A. WILLIAMSON, Commissioner. MR. TULLY. Where is the point of the privilege? What is your question of privilege? that it is stated that the statement I made in referring to the telegram MR. WYATT. The point I make as to the question of privilege is, in the Chronicle was not true. THE CHAIR. The Chair is of the opinion that it is a question of privilege to that extent. MR. TULLY. I make the point that the gentleman is making an original speech. THE CHAIR. The Chair is of the opinion that the gentleman has a Mr. TULLY. I have no objection to hearing any points the gentle- that the bill had been introduced referring to the telegram as read by MR. WYATT. My statement was in the discussion of that subject, myself here, giving the paper and head under which it was to be found, and that whatever idea would be conveyed in that to the mind of a reader, was the idea simply that I conveyed to this Convention. BILL OF RIGHTS. MR. MORELAND. Mr. President: I move that we proceed to consider the preamble in bill of rights. MR. MCFARLAND. I move that the Convention take a recess until two o'clock. Lost. MR. LARKIN. Mr. President: I move we take up the executive department. There are very few amendments made to it. THE CHAIR. That would involve a suspension of the rules. The Chair cannot entertain it as an amendment. If the gentleman moves the suspension of the rules MR. EDGERTON. My friend from El Dorado is probably more MR. LARKIN. What district do you represent? From this amount of one hundred and forty-five thousand two hundred and ninety and forty-one hundredths acres must be deducted, at the lowest estimate, one thousand acres-erroneously listed-thus leaving five thousand seven hundred and nine and fifty-nine hundredths acres not listed or sold on account of the Congressional ! grant. In the Convention reports by the Record-Union, under date of the twenty-interested in the executive department than anything else. [Laughter.] third instant, Mr. Wyatt stated “that a bill has been introduced into Congress confirming to the University forty-five thousand acres of land in addition to the grant already made. It was introduced at the request of the Regents of the University." The statement is not true. On the contrary, a draft of a Congressional bill was submitted to the Board with a request that they would, by their influence, aid its passage. The proposition was discussed by the Regents present, and it was thought best not to aid in the proposed legislation-the Regents being desirous of closing up the business of the Congressional land grant at as early a date as possible consistent with the best interests of the University. San Francisco, January 24th. A. S HALLIDIE. MR. EDGERTON. I represent the Second Congressional District-El Dorado included. MR. LARKIN. My reason is that the Chairman of the Committee on Bill of Rights is away. MR. MORELAND. Is not the Chairman of the Committee of Executive Department away also? MR. EDGERTON. I would ask if the Chairman of any other committee is not away. Garvey,. Lewis, Mansfield, Smith, of San Francisco, Soule, Martin, of Santa Cruz, Stedman, McCallum, McConnell, McCoy, McNutt, Steele, Stevenson, Stuart, Swenson, Swing, Moffat, Terry, MR. LARKIN. I withdraw my motion, as the Chairman of the Com- Filcher, mittee on Taxation is here, having arrived from the lower country Freud, [laughter], and we will allow him to take up his report. THE CHAIR. The motion is to take up the bill of rights. MR. MCFARLAND. Mr. President: Now, in the course of an hour Gorman, or two, we will have two thirds of this Convention here. At this Grace, moment we have a bare quorum. Now I ask if it is fair to take up as Harrison, important a matter as this? It seems to me that we might wait until Heiskell, there is at least a fair representation here. If a bare quorum undertakes to do anything that is not in accord with the views of the Convention, it will be overturned sure. There are plenty of ways of doing it. We are just starting in upon the Constitution in Convention. We will have a very full meeting this afternoon. I have no doubt but that from that Howard, of Mariposa, Nason, time on we will have a full body, because I think that gentlemen from Huestis, San Francisco and that part of the State coming here will perhaps stay Hughey, over next Tuesday, and we may have next Saturday and Monday a full Hunter, representation of the body. It seems to me that there would be no good | Jones, come from starting in now with a bare quorum. MR. WHITE. Mr. President: I hope we will proceed. The gentle men from San Francisco all knew that we were going into Convention this morning. If we adjourn now it will keep us adjourning. I am in favor of continuing right at it, and show these gentlemen that they must be here if they intend to take any interest in this Convention. THE CHAIR. The question is on the motion of the gentleman from Sonoma, Mr. Moreland, to take up the bill of rights. [Cries of "Division," "Ayes and noes," and great confusion.] MR. MCFARLAND. Mr. President: I ask for the ayes and noes. The roll was called, and the motion prevailed by the following vote: Tully, THE CHAIR. The Convention has agreed to section one. MR. GRACE. Mr. President: I would like to state my views about this. I do not think it is policy for us as representatives of the people to go on now to final action on these sections, when there is such a thin house as this here. MR. AYERS. Order. MR. WYATT. Order. [Cries of, "Order;" "Go on;" "Sit down;" and general confusion.] THE CHAIR. The Convention will come to order. The Secretary will read the second section.. THE SECRETARY read: POLITICAL POWER. SEC. 2. All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for the protection, security, and benefit of the people, and they have the right to alter or reform the same whenever the public good may require it. MR. MCFARLAND. Mr. President: I offer an amendment to section two. THE SECRETARY read: "Amend section two by adding thereto as follows: but government can be altered or reformed only in accordance with previously estab lished law.'" MR. HILBORN. Mr. President: I move that we adjourn. I think it is a crime THE CHAIR. It is out of order. MR. HILBORN. A motion to adjourn is always in order. I second the motion. MR. GRACE. I move that we take a recess until two o'clock. THE CHAIR. The gentleman can move that the Convention adjourn until a certain time. A motion to adjourn now without fixing the time is not debatable. You have to first fix the time to which you will adjourn, and then move to adjourn. That is my ruling. MR. WEST. Mr. President: There is a working majority here present-a quorum of this Convention. It is proper and right that we proceed. MR. HILBORN. The motion is not debatable. MR. GRACE. I made a motion to take a recess until two o'clock. Mr. TULLY. I move that the Convention adjourn until two o'clock. o'clock. The word recess don't change the substance of the motion. Lost. THE CHAIR. The Secretary will read the first section. DECLARATION OF RIGHTS. SECTION 1. All men are by nature free and independent, and have MR. AYERS. I move to amend the motion. I move to adjourn until five minutes of two o'clock. MR. WEST. I second the motion. The amendment to the motion was lost. office. Now there is a MR. WEST. We are now in Convention. There is a quorum present. certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and It is legitimate and right that we proceed in regular order in the disdefending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing, and protecting prop-charge of the duties imposed upon us by our office, and by our oath of erty; and pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness. disposition here this morning, on the part of THE CHAIR. Is there any amendment to section one? members, to postpone and to demoralize, and by foolish motionsMR. TULLY. Mr. President: I rise to a point of order. Rule Forty- pardon ine for that expression-to stand and oppose the regular order of Every resolution proposing any alteration in the Constitu- business. I hope that the Convention will not entertain any of these tion shall be read on two several days before it is finally acted upon and motions, but that we will proceed in regular order to the consideration adopted by the Convention." of this report, and that we will spend no more time foolishly. THE CHAIR. The question is on the motion to take a recess until two P. M. The motion was lost. nine says: MR. WATERS. I understand that it has been read several times now. MR. AYERS. All the reports have been read in Convention when reported. THE CHAIR. Section one of the article on bill of rights has been read in Convention when reported by the committee, besides being read in Committee of the Whole. The Chair is of the opinion that this is the second reading. If there is no amendment to this section the Secretary will call the roll. Those in favor of the section will say "aye," when your names are called, those opposed, "no." The roll was called, and the section adopted by the following vote: MR. JONES. Mr. President: I send up an amendment. "Amend section two by inserting in line three, between the words 'same' and 'whenever,' the words by proceeding in accordance with law.'" MR. JONES. Mr. Chairman: The amendment I think, has substantially the effect of that offered by the gentleman from Sacramento, but does so by the interposition of three or four words, without changing the form of the paragraph. It is a clear expression of that which I suppose has been intended to be the meaning of that section. At the same time, the section without these words has been understood, by some persons, to be a sanction in the Constitution itself, of the right of revolution. The right of revolution is an ultimate right. It is not one to be provided for in the organic law, because it not supposed that we will embody in the Constitution the seeds of its own destruction. I think it is proper that these words should be added there, to take away all the ambiguity, and all chance of its being so construed. MR. WHITE. If your theory is right, how could your Colonies ever secede from England? MR. JONES. They took the ultimate right of revolution. No ernment ever provided in its laws for its own destruction. MR. WHITE. The question is, if your theory is right, could the Colonies ever have seceded from England? MR. JONES. Yes; they would have seceded from England just as they did. The right of revolution is a fundamental, legitimate right; but we are not providing for revolutions in this Constitution. We are providing for that which shall proceed by process of organic law. MR. TULLY. Mr. President: I suppose that these amendments are in the nature of a resolution to change and alter the Constitution. They certainly are original propositions, and have not been read upon two several days, as provided for in Rule Forty-nine. I make that point of order, that the amendments are original resolutions, proposing to change and alter the Constitution, and that they have not been read on two several days. ther powers of sovereignty, so far as they were allowed to exercise them at all. By the Constitution which they established they not only tied up the hands of their official agencies, but their own hands as well. But neither the officers of State, nor the whole people as an aggregate gov-body, are at liberty to take action in opposition to this fundamental law. But in every State, although all persons are under the protection of the government and obliged to conform their actions to its laws, there are always some who are excluded from participation in the government, and are compelled to submit to the authority of the government in the creation of which they have no voice. It does not appear that original sovereignty in any case has ever existed since the organization of the Government of the United States, and whenever a State Constitution is framed and adopted the people themselves place themselves under it. Now we have made a provision for the amendment of the Constitution. We have embraced in the article on future amendments all the provisions requisite to tie up the hands of the people, in so far as we desire them to be tied up. Now what is the use of doing anything further and putting into this section a clause which is not only perverting the sense of the section, but is endeavoring to tie us down to the action of the Legislature. It is not the policy of the people. Their acts should be left free. Their minds should be left free to act, in so far as they see fit to act, in reference to this clause which is put in the Constitution authorizing them to alter or reform it whenever the public good may require. It is simply a declaration of the right which we all admit to exist. MR. WEST. Mr. President: I move the previous question. Seconded by Messrs. Ayers, Hunter, Condon, and Murphy. The main question was ordered. THE CHAIR. The Chair is of the opinion that the point of order is not well taken. MR. MURPHY. Mr. President: I move the previous question. THE CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Sacramento, Mr. McFarland. The Secretary will call the roll. MR. MCFARLAND. I desire to say a word upon that question. THE CHAIR. The Chair has deprived the gentleman of the opportunity, by directing the Secretary to call the roll, under the impression that the Convention was ready to vote. I suppose that courtesy would induce the gentleman from Del Norte to withdraw his motion. MR. LARKIN. The Chair directed the Secretary to call the roll, and the Chair could not recognize the gentleman after the roll commenced to be called. THE CHAIR. The Chair is of the opinion that the point is not well taken; that until the roll call has been commenced, the gentleman has a right to address the Chair. The gentleman from Sacramento has the floor. MR. WATERS. Mr. President: I rise to a point of order. The previous question upon these pending amendments was moved by the gentleman from Del Norte, and seconded by the requisite number. The Chair did not put the motion. The gentleman from Sacramento is not in order until that motion is put. THE CHAIR. The Chair will state that the gentleman from Del Norte was recognized, but his motion was not at that time put on account of an apprehension, on the part of the Chair, that the vote would be taken. Then the Chair again called upon the gentleman from Del Norte to know whether he desired to withdraw his motion, and he declined to make any response. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Sacramento as having the floor. REMARKS OF MR. MCFARLAND. MR. MCFARLAND. Mr. President: I am sorry, indeed, that some of my friends are trying to distract business by raising these points of order. I am in earnest in this amendment. My amendment is practically the same as that of the gentleman from Mariposa. I never heard of a Constitution recognizing in its text the right of destroying it illegally and unlawfully-the amendment is to put the Constitution on the well recognized theory of the American Government. I want to have in this Constitution the principle announced by Thomas Jefferson and Daniel Webster, that you cannot change your Government except in accordance with the law. It seems to me that either the amendment I have offered or the one offered by the gentleman from Mariposa, should be put into this Constitution, so that when we are undertaking to frame an organic law we will not put into its text a proposition for its destruction. This section as it stands provides that the Government may be changed in any way. MR. ANDREWS. Mr. President: I wish to ask if the section as reported is not the same as the present Constitution? MR. MCFARLAND. Yes. I supposed that the gentleman from Shasta was here for the purpose of changing this Constitution. What folly it is to say that a thing must be done because it is in the old Constitution. Now, if the gentleman will join with me and say that nothing shall be changed in the old Constitution, I shall consider his argument will have some weight. In framing the Constitution now, we ought to say that our Government can be changed only in accordance with this Constitution and the laws provided under it. I hope that my amendment, or that of the gentleman from Mariposa, will be adopted. THE CHAIR The Chair will call the attention of the Convention at this time to the fact that it is his impression that under Rule Fifty-five these amendments, offered to the sections in Convention, do not require the ayes and noes. The ayes and noes will come on the section as 'amended, unless demanded on the amendments by five members. ness. REMARKS OF MR. HERRINGTON. MR. WYATT. I call for the ayes and noes. MR. HUNTER. Ayes and noes. THE CHAIR. The question is on the adoption of the amendment MR. HILBORN. Five members called for the ayes and noes. The amendment was rejected. MR. BARBOUR. I desire to offer an amendment. MR. BARBOUR. I have been on the floor every time endeavoring to offer an amendment which was offered in the Committee of the Whole, and I have a right to offer it here. THE CHAIR. The Chair did not hear the gentleman. I am under MR. GRACE. There are some gentlemen who have not had- THE CHAIR. Order! The gentleman can rise to a point of order, but not address the Convention. MR. GRACE. I rise to a point of order. The rules of the Convention specially provide that the moving of the previous question shall not prevent the offering of further amendments. THE CHAIR. The Chair is under the impression that the rule was made to apply to the Committee of the Whole. If some gentleman will find the rule MR. GRACE. The rules applied to the Convention and the Committee of the Whole the same. THE CHAIR. The general parliamentary rule requires that the previous question reaches the original proposition. The Secretary will proceed with the call of the roll. MR. STEDMAN. Mr. President The roll was called, and the section adopted by the following vote: Cross, MR. HERRINGTON. Mr. President: I am opposed to these amendments, and I am opposed to them because they will subserve no good end; and I would like, Mr. President, if the Convention would simply Doyle, get down to work instead of creating confusion and trying to delay busi- Evey, It is held by authority that is unimpeachable, that has stood the Filcher, test ever since the organization of the government of the United States, Freeman, and every State in it, that the theory of our political system is that the Freud, ultimate sovereignty is in the people, from whom springs all legitimate Garvey, authority. The people of the United States created a national Constitu- Glascock, tion, and conferred upon it powers of sovereignty over certain subjects, Gorman, and the people in each State created a State government to exercise fur- Harrison, Lewis, Stedman, Steele, Stevenson, Martin, of Santa Cruz, Stuart, McConnell, McCoy, Swenson, Swing, Terry, Tinnin, Tully, Turner, THE SECRETARY read: SEC. 3. We recognize the Constitution of the United States of America as the great charter of our liberties, and the paramount law of the land. By the Committee of the Whole: SEC. 3. That this State shall ever remain a member of the American Union; that the people thereof are a part of the American nation; that there is no right on the part of this State to secede, and that all attempts, from whatever source or upon whatever pretext, to dissolve said Union, or sever said nation, shall be resisted by the whole power of the State. REMARKS OF MR. FILCHER. MR. FILCHER. Mr. President: I move to strike out the section, and in doing so I wish to remark that there is no such section in the present Constitution. Section four in this report occupies the place of section three in the Constitution, as it now stands. Among the principles enunciated, there are some which I cannot indorse. As far as the secession clause is concerned I do indorse it. I believe it is unnecessary to make a declaration of this kind. If there was any apprehension that the people of this State are unloyal to the Union, or ever had been, it might be wise and judicious to make some declaration of our loyalty and allegiance. But, further than that, there is a principle enunciated here which is purely political in its character, and for that reason is decidedly objectionable. That is the declaration that the people are a part of the American nation. I hate to refer to politics on this floor. There are those in the Republican party who declare and believe this to be a nation, but it is not the universal idea even in that party, and there is no Democrat that indorses the doctrine. We believe it is a representative government, and not a nation; a confederation of States, bound together for the protection and good of all. Since it is partial, and not universal in its application, and as it has no significance in the Constitution, I am in favor of striking it out entirely. If, in the judgment of this body, it is thought that something of the kind is necessary to show the allegiance that we owe to the government, in the event that the motion to strike out should fail, I would offer a proposition of this kind: "Every citizen of this State owes allegiance to the Constitution and government of the United States, and any law or ordinance of the State in contravention or subversion thereof shall have no binding force." There is a doctrine accepted by every loyal American citizen; one that we can all consistently indorse, and which I apprehend will be objectionable to none. It is unwise to insert in the Constitution that which, without doing any good, would excite the prejudices of some. fore I hope that the motion to strike out will prevail. MR. TINNIN. Mr. President: I move the previous question. There The main question was ordered, on a division, by a vote of 48 ayes to 34 noes. MR. MCFARLAND. I call for the ayes and noes. Seconded by Messrs. Hilborn, Holmes, Herrington, and Freeman. MR. BARBOUR. Mr. President: We must first take a vote upon the report of the Committee of the Whole, and then will come the vote upon the motion to strike out. THE CHAIR. The Chair is of the opinion that that is the form. The first question will be on the amendment proposed by the Committee of the Whole. MR. MCFARLAND. I understand that the report of the Committee of the Whole was adopted by the Convention. I understand that the amendments adopted in the Committee of the Whole form the report. I understand that they take the place of the report. THE CHAIR. This is different. The first question is: Will the Convention agree to the amendment proposed by the Committee of the Whole? on which the ayes and noes must be taken. The Secretary will call the roll. MR. HERRINGTON. Mr. President: I rise to a point of order. The point of order is this, if the previous question is sustained and the main question is now to be put, I would call the attention order is this, that there is no such question before the Convention as the adoption of the section reported by the Committee on Preamble and Bill of Rights. Our action is on the section reported by the Committee of the Whole. That takes the place of the original section as reported by the committee, except a motion to strike out should prevail. My understanding is, that the amendment was adopted in the place of the original section. THE CHAIR. The Secretary will call the roll. THE SECRETARY commenced the calling of the roll amid great confusion. THE SECRETARY. Mr. President: There is too much noise. I cannot hear the responses. THE CHAIR. The Secretary cannot hear the responses. The Convention will preserve order. MR. EDGERTON [when his name was called.] I vote "aye," upon condition that the Committee on Revision and Adjustment make a decent, grammatical, and intelligent section of it. Upon the question: Will the Convention concur in the amendment reported by the Committee of the Whole? the ayes and noes having been demanded by the requisite number, the roll was called, and the amendment was rejected by the following vote: MR. BARBOUR. Nothing can be done but to vote on the original section. THE CHAIR. The question is on the motion to strike out. MR. ROLFE. I would like to inquire what there is to strike out? MR. TULLY. Would a substitute be in order? THE CHAIR. We are acting under the previous question. A substitute is not now in order. The question is on the motion to strike out. Messrs. Beerstecher, Barton, Larkin, Brown, Hunter, and Freeman demanded the ayes and noes. MR. GRACE. I rise to a point of order. My understanding is that the previous question goes only to the pending amendments. THE CHAIR. The Chair decides that the point of order is not well taken. MR. GRACE. I appeal from the decision of the Chair. that the main question and the only question before this Convention MR. WEST. I rise to a point of order. My point of order is this, was, on the agreement with the recommendation of the Committee of the Whole, and that the previous question was exhausted and the final vote was taken in rejecting the section reported by the committee. not well taken. The gentleman from Placer had made his motion at THE CHAIR. The Chair is of the opinion that the point of order is the time the previous question was moved. The question now is on striking out the section as reported by the Committee on Preamble and Bill of Rights. The roll was called and the motion lost by the following vote: [Confusion.] Garvey, Joyce, THE CHAIR. The gentleman will state his point of order. MR. HERRINGTON. I do not rise to a point of order for the[Great confusion.] Glascock, Kelley, MR. TINNIN. I want to know what we are voting on. MR. STEDMAN. I appeal from the decision of the Chair. Messrs. Filcher, Tully, and Blackmer seconded the appeal. THE CHAIR. The Chair will state the question. An amendment is offered to section three. The Chair decides that the previous question having been sustained in Convention no amendments are in order; that the rule which says that the previous question shall only apply to pending amendments applies exclusively in Committee of the Whole; that under Rule Thirty-five, under the previous question, no amendments can be offered; and that the previous question reaches the main question, which is the section itself. The question is on the appeal: Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the Convention? MR. STEDMAN. Mr. President: In appealing from that decision hold that Rule Thirty-five has been changed, and that the previous question now only applies to pending amendments. That rule was changed in Convention. It applies to the Convention and to the Com mittee of the Whole. THE CHAIR. Will the gentleman read it. I MR. HILBORN. Mr. President: The amendment that the gentleman refers to only applies to Rule Fifty-six. I have no doubt in the world but that the Chair is exactly correct in his ruling. THE CHAIR. The Secretary will read Rule Fifty-six as amended. THE SECRETARY read: "Rule No. 56. The rules of the Convention shall be observed in Committee of the Whole so far as they may be applicable, except that the ayes and noes shall not be taken, but the previous question may be moved; provided, that when the previous question is sustained, it shall only apply to the amendments then pending, and other amendments may be offered to the section." THE CHAIR. The Secretary will read Rule Thirty-five. "RULE NO. 35-THE PREVIOUS QUESTION-HOW PUT. "The previous question shall be put in the following form: Shall the main question be now put?' and alt debate upon the main question shall be suspended until the previous question shall be decided. After the adoption of the previous question the sense of the Convention shall forthwith be taken: first, upon amendments reported by a committee, then upon pending amendments, and then upon the main question, without debate." MR. MCFARLAND. Mr. President: The whole question turns upon the point: What is the main question? and that resolves itself into this: whether or not a motion to adopt the section is not necessary. Now, in my judgment it is. In my judgment a section of this Constitution cannot be voted on, or cannot be adopted, except upon a direct motion to adopt. It has never been adopted at all. It is simply before the Convention for adoption, and a motion must be made to adopt it. No motion had been made to adopt it when the previous question was ordered, and the previous question, therefore, only included the motions before the Convention. We have got rid of the amendments; we have got rid of the motion to strike out, and now we have before the Convention simply this section. Now, it is necessary to have a motion to adopt the section, which motion was not made before the previous question was ordered; therefore, I think the ruling of the Chair is wrong. therefore, I claim that the ruling of the Chair, cutting off amendments, is not in accordance with the rule. For that reason I appeal. MR. BLACKMER. Mr. President: I appeal from the decision of the Chair, on the ground stated by the gentleman from Sacramento, Judge McFarland. MR. WATERS. Mr. President: I rise to a point of order. My point is, that after the previous question is ordered, debate upon points of order is not in order; that points of order and appeals are to be decided without debate. We can have no debate under the previous question, even on an appeal. THE CHAIR. That is the very point to be decided, whether the Chair is right or not. If the Chair is right, then debate is out of order. If the Chair is wrong, then debate is in order, because it would not be under the previous question. MR. WATERS. Could not the vote be taken without debate in that instance? THE CHAIR. That would be assuming that the Chair was necessarily correct, which the Chair cannot assume. That is for the Convention to decide. MR. BLACKMER. Now, sir, because the Chair assumed that the question had been ordered upon the section after we had passed upon the motion to strike out, it does not follow that this is the main question, and it is upon that ground that I appeal. I believe, with the gentleman from Sacramento, that when we pass one of these sections, it by a committee to this Convention, to act upon them, and if we are to is necessary to have a motion to that effect. They are here, presented act upon them, and the main question is to reach that point, there must exhausted itself upon the motion to strike out. It left before the Conbe a motion to adopt the section; consequently the main question vention the section as proposed by the Committee on Preamble and Bill of Rights, before amendment by the Committee of the Whole. Upon that ground I take the appeal. MR. GRACE. Mr. President: These are called the Standing Rules of the Constitutional Convention of the State of California. Now we are in Convention. If these rules do not refer to this Convention, then I would like to know what they are for. Then there is another thing. We all know that there are a great many articles, or sections, that were adopted in the Committee of the Whole, that do not meet the wishes and views of a majority of this Convention. We want to discuss them and amend them. That is what we are here for. Some gentleman can send up some humbug amendment, and then the previous question is ordered, and we have got to take what we don't want. We can never get things right. If these rules only apply to the Committee of the Whole, we had better go to work and get up a set of rules to govern this Convention. I shall sustain the appeal. MR. ANDREWS. Mr. President: In reference to the point made by the gentleman from Sacramento, I wish to read the latter part of Rule Twenty-four. I think it will satisfy the gentleman, and all others, that under the rules of this Convention every proposition must come to a vote. The latter part of Rule Twenty-four says: "Provided further, that on all resolutions and propositions relating to the Constitution, the final vote shall be taken by ayes and noes." MR. MCFARLAND. What is the final vote? It is upon the adoption of the section. How does that come up? MR. ANDREWS. It necessarily comes up. I contend that the question now before the Convention, under the previous question, is, shall the Convention adopt section three. That is the question under the rules of the House, as provided in the latter part of Rule Twenty-four. MR. BLACKMER. But there must be a motion. MR. ANDREWS. Under the rules the motion comes up of itself. MR. MURPHY. Mr. President: I move to lay the appeal upon the table. Messrs. Stedman, McFarland, Tully, Wyatt, and Glascock demanded the ayes and noes. THE CHAIR. The Chair will state before the vote is taken, that Rule Fifty-six, in the opinion of the Chair, is applicable only to the Committee of the Whole. 'The rules of the Convention shall be observed in Committee of the Whole, so far as they may be applicable, except that the ayes and noes shall not be taken, but the previous question may be moved; provided, that when the previous question is sustained, it shall apply only to the amendments then pending, and other amendments may be offered to the section." That, in the opinion of the Chair, in plain words, refers exclusively to the Committee of the Whole. Then, under Rule Thirty-five: "After the adoption of the previous question, the sense of the Convention shall forthwith be taken, first, upon amendments reported by a committee, then upon pending amendments, and then upon the main question, without debate." The Chair is of the opinion that the main question is section three, as reported by the Committee on Preamble and Bill of Rights. On that proposition, under Rule Twenty-four, the ultimate question is to be taken by ayes and noes. It is whether section three shall stand as reported by the Committee on Preamble and Bill of Rights. The ayes and noes are demanded upon the motion to lay the appeal upon the table. Those voting in the affirmative will, as their names are called, say "aye;" those voting in the negative will say "no." The Secretary will call the roll. The roll was called, and the motion prevailed by the following vote: MR. BARBOUR. Mr. President: I shall vote to sustain the Chair, because I believe it is correct; but I don't like it. I maintain that the main question is the original section reported by the committee-not the Committee of the Whole, but the committee on the article. That is the only main question that there is. The pending amendments, under this Andrews, rule, have been disposed of, and this section is to be considered. Barbour, MR. FILCHER. Mr. President: I am one of those who appeal from Barry, the decision of the Chair. I do so on the ground that the rules under Barton, which we are acting are not the rules of the Committee of the Whole, Beerstecher, but the rules of the Convention. The rules provide that the previous Belcher, question shall only extend to the amendments under consideration; Bell, |