States declaration is made that “we, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." I claim that we were a nation, that we were Americans, and that we should not be afraid anywhere or under any circumstances to enunciate that proposition. I thought that we ought to be proud of our citizenship-of our nationality. I thought we ought in some manner to express it in this solemn document, and I thought it was due to the people of the State of California that this Convention should show their allegiance to this great nation, and for that reason I placed that second proposition there. The third reads: "There is no right on the part of this State to secede." The reason this was inserted was that it has hitherto been claimed that the right-the legal right-to secede was a right the State possessed. Therefore I thought it was but fit and proper that this question should be settled in our organic law. Thus far I think that section ought to stand. The latter part of it I care nothing about. If that part of the reconsideration of the Committee of the Whole should be adopted I would move that the remaining portion be stricken out. I believe that it is fit and proper this should be done. I know that this is not intended as a red flag, thrown in the face of any one, but when the American flag is a red flag to any man, then, in my judgment, he is unworthy of American citizenship. No man is so good a Republican, so good a Democrat, or so good a Workingman, but that he can afford to adopt the first three propositions in that amendment. They are all right-all patriotic. Nor is this question anything new. We find similar provisions in many of the Constitutions of the different States of the Union, and at this time in this State, so remote from our sister States at the East, we ought to give expression to our devotion to our common country. We are told that the time will come when we will have a Pacific Republic. For one I wish to place upon record my utter abhorrence of that idea. For one I recognize my paramount allegiance to the United States, and only a secondary allegiance to the State of California. I believe this is the sentiment of a large majority of the people of our State, and I must think this section will represent the best thought and the average judgment of the people of the State and the members of this Convention. These are some of the reasons why I proposed that amendment, and why I make this motion. I hope, therefore, that the motion to reconsider the vote by which the report of the Committee of the Whole upon section three was rejected will be adopted, and that we will have an opportunity then to amend it in such a manner as will meet the wishes of the Convention and of the people of the State. REMARKS OF MR. GRACE. MR. GRACE. Mr. President: As a member of the Workingmen's party, I wish only to state that I am in favor of this section as adopted, and have been. The Workingmen's party is in favor of it. Their platform says: "We recognize the Constitution of the United States of America as the great charter of our liberties, and the paramount law of the land." I am a man that was born and raised under the Constitution of the United States. I was raised also under the flag of the United States; and in favor of the Constitution and laws of the United States. I believe that this is the best government that was ever founded by man, and I am opposed to this doctrine that was inaugurated by the Southern Confederacy, that the government has a right to tumble to pieces. I hold that the nation is perpetual, and I cannot see why we should not, as American citizens, say this in our Constitution here, that the Constitution of the United States is the charter of our liberties. It is the bulwarks of our institutions. I am favor of sustaining it here and everywhere. I know that the Workingmen's party is in favor of it. I do not know what the Democrats and Non-Partisans are in favor of. REMARKS OF MR. WHITE. cle contains fitting language for the Constitution of the State of California. Section three, as adopted yesterday, because it reads as follows: "We recognize the Constitution of the United States of America as the great charter of our liberties, and the paramount law of the land." To say that it is the great charter of our liberties is, for every man who puts himself on record in favor of it, to write himself down-well, I will not use a strong phrase-as unfit to be a delegate to this Convention, because he does not know the meaning of the English language, or the meaning of the history of our country. The Constitution of the United States is not the great charter of our liberties. If there is any national paper that is sometimes called so in fourth of July orations, it is the Declaration of Independence; but as to the charter of the liberties of the people of this State, if it is proper to use the word charter at all, the Constitution of the State of California is the charter of our liberties; therefore it is not true what we have here in our Constitution. I voted for it in preference to other very foolish and remarkable propositions made here yesterday, and I am satisfied that the debate taking a partisan course has induced the Convention to do that which I will venture to say is not the deliberate judgment of twenty men on the floor of this Convention out of over one hundred members here this morning. Why, the gentleman from Placer, Mr. Filcher, took occasion to use language such as I have not heard used since the war ended. He absolutely declared, in the presence of this Convention, that the United States was not a nation! I am aware that those of the same political faith as himself claim that that was the substance of the argument of those who believed in the doctrine of secession, but I never heard one of them put it in that bold form. He said it was not a nation, because it was a republic. He had an amendment to say that it was a confederation of States, and so on. I do not believe there are ten men in the Convention that will say that the United States is not a nation. This kind of argument induced the Convention to strike out the amendment of the Committee of the Whole and then adopt the article reported by the Committee on Preamble and Bill of Rights. Now, I believe in every word of the report of the Committee of the Whole, but I submit to the gentleman from San Francisco, Mr. Estee, if this is fitting language for a State that has ever been loyal to the American Union as California has been. It is the language of a reconstructed State. It is the language of a defeated people, and not the language of a people who have been true to the Constitution and government to the end. Now, sir, I say that this motion to reconsider, in my judgment, ought to prevail. Let us adopt some language more fitting than that we adopted yesterday. I submit to gentlemen whether it would not be satisfactory to every one to adopt the language of the Constitution of the United States, namely: that "the Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land." That is the language of the Constitution. I have an amendment which changes that only in one word, and it seems to me to be important. I submit it to the gentleman because some gentlemen do not like to vote for the section as reported by the Committee of the Whole. "The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the nation." I do not use the word "land," I use the word "nation." It covers both points. I hope this motion to reconsider will prevail, and that we will improve that section. When an opportunity offers I propose to offer that as the language of section three. I admit that there might be no necessity to say anything upon the subject, had it not been for the discussion of the committee; but now we must say something, or put a weapon in the Let us say that. It is brief; it is hands of the enemies of our work. pointed; it covers the whole thing. REMARKS OF MR. MCFARLAND. MR. MCFARLAND. Mr. President: This is a very delicate question. It is surrounded with great difficulties. The fact of the business is, sir, this is a wearisome world, and this Convention is a place where men are bothered a great deal. Now, there is no doubt in the world but what the proposition of the gentleman from San Francisco, Mr. Estee, is correct. It is correct in principle and asserts just what should be asserted. But it must be recollected that if anything of this kind was adopted, it would have a great tendency to break down this Constitution; because, sir, it is a mistake to say that the people in California are loyal. No such thing. It was shown here yesterday, by the action of this ConvenPlacer, Mr. Filcher, that perhaps a majority of this Convention are in favor of secession. If we are going to adopt the principle of loyalty there is great danger that a large number of people in the State of California, who do not believe that this is a nation, or do not believe in loyalty and constitutional government, will be induced to vote against this Constitution. Then where will we be, sir? This is a matter to be taken into serious consideration. I presume that the principle involved in this section is the most important question that ever arose in American politics-a question that has been discussed in the Legislatures of the State, and in the Congress of the United States, and has been fought out upon the battle field. That is the very question fought out in the war. of the rebellion-the question whether or not this is a nation. And yet it was asserted here broadly, yesterday, that this is not a nation, asserting the very doctrine for which the southern armies fought. And yet, right upon the heels of that gentleman's speech, a majority of this Convention, rushing in the previous question, followed him. MR. WHITE. Mr. President: When this question was up before, my recollection is, that the gentleman from San Francisco voted not to strike out that section; but whether that is so or not, I say that the principles enunciated in section three, as reported by the committee, are fully as loyal and patriotic as that proposed by the gentleman from San Francisco. I say more, sir. If we adopt the amendment offered by him, we would cast rather a stigma upon the State of California. Californiation, following quick upon the secession speech of the gentleman from never did secede; never showed any disposition to secede; and she stood loyal to the government during the whole struggle. Now, sir, we intend to stand loyal. That amendment is taken from the rebel States. It has been adopted in the Constitutions of all the rebel States, and we do not want to class ourselves with those States that made that terrible foolish move of trying to secede from the Union. We want to stand where we stood, with the Northern States; and not one single Constitution in the Northern States, or the States that remained loyal to the Union, has any such amendment as that. The declaration we adopted yesterday, is full, decided, and loyal. It declares the Constitution of the United States to be the charter of our liberties, and I believe it to be a charter, although some say there are other bulwarks that would stand between us and anarchy, but I do not think so. I trust, Mr. President, that we will retain the declaration that we made yesterday, and that the amendment of the gentleman from San Francisco will not be adopted, for the very reason that it casts a stigma upon California, which she does not deserve. REMARKS OF MR. MCCALLUM. Now, sir, my course is very plain. My purpose is to go for whatever I think right; but it may be seen here that a majority of this Convention are not voting for what is right, but for what they think is policy. They suppose that some great aim is to be accomplished by carrying this Constitution right or wrong, and when a proposition is presented here which is supposed to lose this Constitution votes, then gentlemen go against it. MR. MCCALLUM. Mr. President: I hope that no partisan feeling will induce us to either reject or adopt any particular language in reference to the Constitution of the State. I voted for the article reported by the Committee of the Whole, of which, I believe, the gentleman from the First District, Mr. Estee, was the author. When that was rejected, I also voted for the article as proposed by the Committee on Preamble and Bill of Rights, which was adopted. My judgment is, that neither arti- | are here in a representative capacity? MR. AYERS. Do you consider that the delegates to the Convention MR. MCFARLAND. Yes. Constitution for the State of California, and for the government of the MR. AYERS. Should they not try to represent the views of their people within its jurisdiction. The Federal Government is able to hoe constituencies? its own row. We can neither add to nor detract from its power. Now, Whether it be true or MR. MCFARLAND. This is somewhat of a play. I say the man is a moral and intellectual coward who stands upon this floor and says he will not vote for what his conscience tells him is right, because it is not popu-fact by the assertion already inserted. But, forsooth, it happens to be an lar. It is a question of popularity. A man who says he will not follow his conscience or judgment, because his constituents are against it, simply says he will not vote for what is right, because it is unpopular; and you cannot get out of it. Now, I say this proposition of the gentleman from San Francisco includes the very greatest principle and the greatest truth in American politics, and California is a part of the United States of America. I say that the most important question that ever arose in this nation, or in California, is, whether we believe we are a part of the American nation, or whether we believe that the Government of the United States is a mere temporary need of the several separate nations? I say that if we believe that the proposition here is true, it should be asserted. Now, the gentleman from Alameda says that it is only necessary and proper for certain States in this Union, who have fought for the opposite doctrine, to say that this doctrine is right. I say, that in the Constitution of Virginia, they have reiterated the same doctrine that the gentleman from Placer asserts in this Convention. I say that, although that doctrine of secession was put down by force of arms, it is still alive, and has its advocates in California and in this Convention; and when gentlemen talk to me about the people of California being loyal, and having always been so, I say it is not true, because, if General Sumner had not come to this State just as he did, this State would have gone to the Southern Confederacy, the arsenals would have been turned over to traitors, and loyal men would have been put down, until the time that the Government at home could have sent us support, and everybody knows it. MR. CASSERLY. Mr. President: I must say that, having given a great deal of attention to the subject, I remember of nothing that warrants the gentleman in saying that the State of California would have left the Union under any circumstances. MR. MCFARLAND. Mr. President: I know that a majority of the people of the State of California, are loyal, but I know that there is a large element here that is disloyal, and that if they had the power they would have taken this State out of the Union. I know that there are REMARKS OF MR. HOWARD. It was in bad taste. It able men in the State of California who have never given up the doctrine of secession, and who stand for it to-day. I am not blaming them.supporting the proclamation of General Jackson, in eighteen hundred If they follow the dictates of their consciences, all right; but when we come here we ought to determine what is right. I make no charges against these men personally. I have no disrespect for the men who fought in the Southern army. No man's judgment is entirely infallible. Perhaps the South was right. Perhaps the doctrine of secession was the correct doctrine, and a man is a man for all that. Every man has a right to his opinions. Perhaps they were right, sir, but the question for us to determine is whether they were or not. What does this Conven this difficulty, sir, by endeavoring to engraft some political pyrotechnics MR. HOWARD, of Los Angeles. Mr. President: We have got into upon the fundamental law of this State. exhibits bad history and worse law, and I regret exceedingly that an attempt has been made here to give it a party turn. Formerly I offered as a substitute for the third section, the language of the Supreme Court of the United States, which was the language of Alexander Hamilton. Now, sir, I regret, also, that the gentleman from Sacramento should have thought it his duty here, to the interests of his party, to exhibit the nether part of the bloody shirt. It seems to me that it was a wrong thing. As for myself, I have only to say that I began political life by and thirty-three, against secession; that I wrote essays, in the State of Mississippi, in favor of the doctrines of the proclamation; and that subsequently, in the Legislature of Mississippi, in eighteen bundred and thirty-six, I voted for Wilbur J. Walker, who was the advocate of the doctrines of the proclamation, against George Pendegast, who was on the secession side. This is a matter of no great importance, but I may be pardoned in saying it in justification of myself. I am opposed to the third section. I hope this motion to reconsider will prevail, and that we will strike out of the Constitution everything about it. It is, from right or wrong? If they think it was right, smooth it over the best youtution of the United States; we cannot take away from it, and the Conbeginning to end, a miserable clap-trap. We cannot add to the Constican. If they believe the United States is a nation, and this State a part of the nation, why not say it in the fundamental law? If the majority of the Convention believe that this is not a nation, say so. If there are men who believe this is not a nation, let them take the bold manly ground taken by the gentleman from Placer, and say whether this State is a part of this nation, or whether it is an independent sovereignty, bound together by a temporary need. Let us determine in this Constitution what is the truth. I do not claim that other men may not be right who do not agree with me. It is possibly true, sir, that this is not a nation. I do not believe it. I believe that the flag that waves over this country is the emblem of the grandest nation that the world ever saw. But if other gentlemen do not believe it, let them say so. take ground one way or the other, and let us determine whether we are a part of the American nation or not, or whether there is any such thing as the American nation. If we are not, say so, and let this Convention But if we believe in the doctrine that we are part of this nation let us put it in this Constitution. Therefore, I say that the question should be met, and it should not be skulked around. Let us not hide behind subterfuges. tion think? Does this Convention think the doctrine of secession was say so. REMARKS OF MR. BARBOUR. Let us MR. BARBOUR. Mr. President: This seems to be a good time for making speeches for buncombe, and I do not know why I should not improve the opportunity. The gentleman from Sacramento claims that in his opinion a majority of this body is disloyal. MR. MCFARLAND. I did not say so. MR. BARBOUR. So I understand him. He infers it, because we refuse to have the bloody shirt-that beautiful garment which has been used until it is somewhat worn out-waved at all times and in all places. I have some right to speak upon this subject. I threw down my law books and went into the fight. I do not know how many rebels I may have killed and eat, but I think perhaps as many as the gentlemen who are so fond of waving this bloody garment, and charge us now with damnable secession notions. [Applause.] We may be defenders of the great and glorious country in which we were born, but it does not follow that we must be eternally parading that bloody shirt. We are here, sir, making a gress of the United States, and the Supreme Court of the United States MR. FREUD. As a member of the committee, and as the author of that section, I will say that as it stands now so was it introduced in the committee. MR. HOWARD. I was under the impression that palladium was in the original. I may be wrong about that, and I am very glad to learn that my young friend is the author of it, and that he goes back on that old lady. Now, sir, if it can be said in any sense that our Constitutions are the charters of our liberties, it cannot be said exclusively of the Constitution of the United States, for our constitutional government is a dual system, composed of the Constitutions of the United States and of the States. I am rather inclined to agree with the gentleman from Alameda, that the State Constitution is as much or more the charter of our liberties than the Constitution of the United States. It is, therefore, untrue when the committee says, in substance, that the Constitution of the United States is the exclusive charter of American liberties. It is not so, sir, and Alexander Hamilton, in one of his most brilliant numbers of the Federalist, declares that the Constitutions of the States are, more than all others, a protection to the civil liberties of the citizens. Therefore, sir, it is an extraordinary proposition to undertake to say here, in effect, that the Constitution of the United States is the exclusive charter of the American liberties. It is not true. No learned jurist ever said that is true. The Supreme Court of the United States, in three or four decisions, have repeatedly said the reverse. Why do we seek to innovate upon the great doctrines of that Court, and of all the statesmen of the country? I hope the motion of the gentleman from San Francisco will prevail, and I hope that we shall strike out anything upon the subject in the Constitution of this State, for it has no place here. It has no meaning here, and I am opposed to it, because as it stands now it is an untruth, legally and historically. Now, sir, in the second place, the Constitution of the United States is not the paramount law of the land except as to treaties, and Acts of Congress made in pursuance of the Constitution. It is the paramount law of the land within the sphere of the Federal Government, as Chief Justice Marshall says. It is not the paramount law of the land, nor is it valid when it goes a step beyond that sphere, and the Supreme Court of the United States has so decided in the case which I read here the other day, which decision was rendered since the close of the rebellion. The Supreme Court of the United States repudiates altogether the doctrine that the character or nature of our government was changed by the rebellion, or that the victory at Appomattox had anything to do with the fundamental principles of government. Therefore, I say, sir, that this whole thing is a miserable humbug; is a pure party claptrap without sense and without merit. It is not true. It is bad rhetoric, and if we should put it into the Constitution, some future Disraeli, who was looking up the curiosities of literature would be apt to include it in his book. It is a false quotation, so far as it assumes to be a quotation. It reminds me of a declaration of a friend of mine, a former Governor of Texas, who quoted a line from Shakspeare, and attached to it the preface," as it is said in Holy Writ." It ran through all the newspapers in the country THE PRESIDENT. The gentleman's time is exhausted. REMARKS OF MR. BIGGS. MR. BIGGS. Mr. President: Having been elected here as a non-partisan, I propose to carry that out to the best of my ability during this Convention, and when I see gentlemen elected upon the same ticket as myself come here and try to throw fire-brands among us and get political sections engrafted in the Constitution, I must denounce them, in unmeasured terins, as following the tricks of the demagogue. I ask no cheap notoriety. It is demagogism of the darkest dye. It is damnable, trashy stuff, and I move to lay it on the table. MR. FILCHER. I have a right to say a word on this question. REMARKS OF MR. FILCHER. MR FILCHER. Mr. President: I would have no disposition to speak further on this matter, except that I have been placed in a somewhat peculiar light, and it may be gratifying to hear a little more from a good, strong secessionist like myself. Mr. President, I never knew, until this morning, that there was any taint of secession about me, or in the family bearing my name. Because, sir, in deference to principle and in repugnance to demagogism, I had the temerity to get up and say what I did, and speak of the bad policy of adopting such a section as was presented here, I am denounced as a secessionist, and as giving the alarm here, starting a cry at which they all want to strike out a loyal plank in the Constitution, and virtually put this Convention and the people of California on a footing with secession States. I did declare this, and I repeat it, that it is bad policy to insert in this Constitution that the American government is a nation. My reason is this: In all governments it has been the desire of ambitious statesmen and rulers to aggrandise their government by giving to it the title of nation. Others, in controvention of this idea, have ever maintained and recognized the God-given doctrine that a nation was those of one blood, and none but those of one blood, or coming from one descent, can form a nation. We have, in the city of San Francisco, a Chinese nation. We had, at one time, a Cherokee nation. I do not know to which of these the honorable gentleman from Sacramento belongs; but we have here, on the great American continent, a great American Republic, formed by the people. A republic carries with it the idea of simplicity, purity, and self-government a very excellent idea, and an improvement on the old nation doctrine. I, for one, believe in simplicity, purity, and self-government. I believe in a government in which the people are the supreme rulers, and I understand that to be the theory of this government. Now, I am not speaking from a partisan standpoint, except on that one point; but I say that as a rule the Republican party is considered a more aristocratic party than the Democratic party, and they have aimed to inculcate the doctrine of aristocracy in the Republic itself, and lead to centralization by calling it a nation. We all refer to it in the general sense of the National Government. It is just an idea, a custom, and is not borne out by the absolute facts. Now, sir, I would ask, though I myself might indorse the doctrine, would it be policy to flaunt it in the face of the people, and thus doubly secure the defeat of the work we are trying to perform? As to being a secessionist, those who know ine would laugh at the idea. I was instrumental in my community, though not of age, in forming what we called the "Union Club," and got into it almost everybody in the community. I never dreamed of secession. If this Convention wants to declare against secession, I have no objection. Take this section reported by the Committe of the Whole: "That this State shall ever remain a member of the American Union." I do believe in the Union, compact and consolidated for the benefit of the people, and a Union which I believe there is no man on this floor would go further than myself to defend and to uphold. “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." There is a declaration that might satisfy anybody, and I would vote for it, and uphold it, if it was policy. It is a declaration of allegiance; it is a declaration that every man could stand up to. But I repeat, sir, that since there is a difference of opinion, since there is a question, one that goes home to the hearts of many people, about the policy of confirming this Government as a nation, I ask, is it policy to assert what a large portion of the people are yet disputing about? We are not disputing about secession. We recognize that the doctrine of secession has been settled by the arbitrament of the sword. The Union, and Union forever, is coexistent with the existence of the whole Government. In conclusion, I would simply say that I regret that the matter was brought up in the shape it was. I regret that an opportunity has been given here for some of our friends to repeat their political speeches, and yet I hope that good will come of it. Unless something better than this can be had, I would be in favor of striking out the whole thing. We can not add one jot or tittle to the Federal Constitution. We cannot make the State loyal by declaring so; nor disloyal by declaring to the contrary. It is but buncombe at the best. The section as finally passed I do not like. THE PRESIDENT. Time. REMARKS OF MR. WEST. MR. WEST. Mr. President: I am in favor of the amendment as agreed upon in the Committee of the Whole; therefore, I hope that the Convention will reconsider this vote, and that we will be permitted again to vote upon the amendment as recommended by the Committee of the Whole to this Convention. Permit me to say that I feel it is unfortunate in this stage of our proceedings that this question has been broached in the manner in which it has-in a political, partisan sense. I believe it was a mistake, perhaps inadvertently made by my good friend, Mr. Filcher, whose patriotism I indorse, when he said that no Democrat, as such, could indorse the principles of section three as recommended by the Committee of the Whole. It pained me when that declaration was made, and I knew very well then that it would excite the partisan feeling, and perhaps give rise to unpleasant words. I am one of those who fought this bloody rebellion through, and there is not a gentleman on this floor that feels more toleration, or will bridge the chasm with a better grace than I will to-day. I believe that those who fought on both sides will unite with me in saying that the issues which we fought over then and there should be buried forever. But while we may be guided in the future by the lamp of experience, and while I favor burying those issues in the past, there is no gentleman who will pretend to say that this nation-and I use the word nation in its broadest sense-will never be invaded, and its perpetuity and existence threatened by the same spirit that it was in the late war. Questions that were fought over there are now settled, but however clear our horizon may be to-day, there may be clouds in the future. There are clouds that threaten us, but not from the same source; and those gentlemen, be they Democrats or whatever else they are, should unite in saying that this State never can secede. I do not claim that the perpetuity of this government will ever be assailed from the same source as before, but it may be that among the political factions that spring up every day, the right of secession may be claimed, and the right to defend themselves against imaginary wrongs, that they think they have suffered at the hands of the General Government, and you will have a Mexico here in the United States. I hope that the American people, and the people of California, will once and for all assert in their organic law, that secession is no remedy for any of the evils that exist in our governmental structure; that the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of California, will provide the constitutional, legal means for the redress of all grievances which fact exist, or which may be imagined by the citizens of this State; and that all proclamations of independence against any governmental power in the United States shall be forever discountenanced and put down. I plead for this. I ask for it, feeling and knowing what this country has suffered by the too loose and too careless consideration of the relations of the States to the nation. Now, Mr. President, I believe that every lover of his country, I believe that all here, will unite upon the necessity of this. They may say that these are glittering generalities, but we have seen the time when these words meant something. If we believe that this State is a part of the American Union, let us say so. It matters not particularly whether it is in the language of the gentleman from Placer, Mr. Filcher; of the gentleman from Alameda, Mr. McCallum; or of the amendment offered by the Committee of the Whole. I care not for the language so long as the substance is there. I cannot be satisfied as a citizen of the State, and the people of this State will not be satisfied, if we fail to insert in the new Constitution, that this State is a part of the American nation. REMARKS OF MR. TULLY. MR. TULLY. Mr. President: I presume that I am one of the parties at least, that the gentleman from Sacramento, Judge McFarland, alludes to as secessionist, because I saw fit to vote contrary to his ideas on yesterday. Now I mean to say, that I do not think anybody who knows me will deny the fact, that so far as my politics is concerned, I always speak saying, and vote just what I think. I believe that the Constitution of the United States, in one sense of the word, is the supreme law of the land. I think if anything was established in that conflict, that that proposition was established; and I sent up to the desk yesterday an amendment to that effect, but failed to get it in: That we recognized the Constitution of the United States of America as the supreme law of Murphy, the land. O'Sullivan, demanded by Messrs. Wyatt, Dean, O'Sullivan, Condon, and Joyce. Upon the motion of Mr. Estee to reconsider, the ayes and noes were The roll was called, and the motion prevailed by the following vote: MR. MCCALLUM. Don't you think it would read better this way: "The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land?" MR. TULLY. Yes. I am willing to vote for that. I am sorry that this discussion has sprung up. I am sorry that any gentleman should have thought fit to introduce it. Matters here should be discussed with a clear and cool head, without regard to partisanship, and without regard to the effect that any vote may have upon the coming political campaign, Now, the gentleman from Sacramento-and I am sorry that he is not in his seat, because he generally makes it convenient to dodge all castigations, [laughter]-said that the man who would not vote for Ayers, what he conscienciously believed to be right, was a moral coward. I Belcher, concur with the gentleman in that proposition, and we have some evi- Blackmer, dence of it on the libel question. On one occasion we had seventy-four Boucher, noes and yesterday seventeen. They fell down in this Convention like Burt, camels in a sand storm. I pity, from my heart, the man who has not Caples, the moral courage to say and vote as he thinks is right. But if there is Casserly, one man that I pity more than a moral coward, it is a political hum- Chapman, bug, [laughter]-a political demagogue, sir-a man who will try to cover Charles, up his shortcomings in this Convention, and the many outrages that he Crouch, has committed upon the rights of the people, by appealing to the preju Dean, dices, as he has, of a large number of gentlemen who are here. He Dowling, seeks to so blind their intellects, and rouse so much partisan prejudice, Dudley, of Solano, that they will forget the purposes for which they are called here, and Dunlap, blindly follow his dictation. He is like a cuttle fish, sir, that pours forth Estee, a dark fluid to color the water behind him that he may escape from his Evey, enemies. He wishes to blind us that he may escape his shortcomings. Filcher, Mr. President, I believe that is all I have to say upon the subject. I Garvey, merely wish to set myself right upon the subject. Perhaps I might add Gregg, one other word to Mr. West. He says he entertains no hard feelings Hager, against us. We are all pretty good fellows, and if we all just do right Harvey, in his way we will all got along harmonious. So far as the Constitution Heiskell, of the United States being the charter of our liberties, that is a falsehood. It would simply be a declaration of a lie. No human being Andrews, that lives on the earth enjoys a single liberty or a single right that Barbour, he derives from the Federal Constitution, as an original source. There Barry, is not a respectable authority in America, there is not a decision Barton, of a Court, nor a respectable writer on law, nor a gentleman who stands high in the jurisprudence of the country, that has ever or ever will maintain such a proposition, because it is subversive of the common sense views of the country. Now, I despise all this claptrap, and I hope this vote to reconsider will prevail, and that we will put in the amendment of the gentleman from Alameda, that the Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land. Beerstecher, Condon, MR. BARRY. Mr. President: I believe that these matters were Seconded by Messrs. Dean, Tully, Waters, and Smith of Santa Clara. MR. HOWARD. I demand the ayes and noes. noes. Glascock, Grace, MR. MCCALLUM. Mr. President: I offer an amendment to the section. THE SECRETARY read: "Amend section three by striking out all after the figure '3,' and inserting as follows: The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land.'" REMARKS OF MR. CASSERLY. MR. CASSERLY. Mr. President: The controversy which has been debated this morning seems to me, with all due respect to my colleagues in this Convention, very much an affair of fighting shadows. It seems to me as if the question was whether we are a nation, or a people. Now, in regard to the use of the word nation it is certainly significant, if not remarkable, that in the Constitution of the United States under which we now live, the word "nation" is nowhere to be found. It is always the American people, or the people of the United States. The word Union is found as representing that indissoluble partnership between the States of the Union united under one head, that head being the General Government. It seems to me, therefore, that the whole question resolves itself very much into a matter of fancy whether the word nation ought to be used, or the word people. Besides the hated and very significant omission of the word "nation" in any part of the Constitution of the United States there is this further to be offered, that the common use of the word nation is not applied to countries like our own. The common use of language is that we say the French people, the English people, or the German people, but we do not say the French nation, the English nation, or the Spanish nation. The good old Anglo-Saxon word people is the word which was selected by choice and by intention, by the makers of our Constitution and the makers of our form of government; and certainly, if I was disposed to press the etymological signification, I should oppose the use of the word nation. But for myself I would not quarrel one moment with any member of this Convention whether the word nation was used, or the word people. What I have said I have endeavored to say for the purpose of justifying such of our friends as prefer to adhere to the word people rather than give way to, and adopt the word nation. I think, sir, that what George Washington and that illustrious galaxy of men of whom he was the central figure, thought fit to eschew, we can get along without, that is the use of the word nation, substituting for it the word people, to my mind a grander idea than the word nation, because composed of several different nationalities and several different races. When you speak of the word people, you speak of a great and powerful people raising the structure of whose government we see from day to day. Let us not fall out by the way. We are all, I trust, equally devoted to the glory and the power, and the firmness of this grandest structure of ancient and modern times, known in popular language as the American Union; known also in Courts of law as the American law. Now, sir, if we do not wish to adopt the word nation, which I will admit is a very grand word, why not take the word people. And if the word people be objectionable, why, let the gentlemen who differ from me upon this floor present a better one. But what I object to with some feeling, I must admit, is the manifest and most unfair and improper effort made by certain gentlemen upon this floor, to make a division among men who are not divided in point of loyalty, or in their love for the doctrine that this is one of the permanent governments of this world, as long as this globe shall last. I repudiate with scorn, and I had almost said with contempt-but that word is not parliamentary and I withdraw it-I repudiate and defy the efforts, from whatever source, to put upon any considerable number of men in this Convention the brand of secession. We have had enough and too much of divisions in this country. Who is it, sir, that proposes to bring back here into this body the terrible feud which drenched this land with blood, which left us the corpses of a million or more of brave men who fought on each side. I ask not to know who was in the right, or who was in the wrong, but what I demand from every man here, is that whatever was best, proudest, and bravest in the way of self denial and heroism on either side shall be remembered, and that all else shall be sunk deeper than the tomb of oblivion ever sunk it. [Applause.] REMARKS OF MR. WELLER. MR. WELLER. Mr. President: I have an amendment that I drew when this first one was drawn, that I like a little better than the one that is now up for consideration. It reads: "Every citizen of this State owes paramount allegiance to the Constitution and Government of the United States, and no law or ordinance of this State in contravention or for the subversion thereof can have any binding force." Our Government is known as the United States of America, and as the United States, and when we say that every citizen owes paramount allegiance to the Constitution and Government of the United States, we say all that we can say in regard to the people of this State; and that no law or ordinance of this State in contravention or subversion thereof can have any binding force. It seems to me, if anything is expected of us in this Constitution to express our allegiance to that Government, it can be expressed in that many words, and with as much effect as we can express it at all. I would therefore offer the amendment. THE PRESIDENT. There is an amendment to an amendment pending already. The amendment is not in order. REMARKS OF MR. HILBORN. MR. HILBORN. Mr. President: I rise merely to say a few words in reply to the radical argument of the gentleman from Los Angeles, General Howard. I, sir, recollect that speech. I think I heard it twentyfive or thirty years ago. But I call the attention of the gentleman to the fact that the cases he has cited have been overruled by a more recent case-the case that was alluded to by the gentleman from Marin, Judge Shafter-the case of Grant vs. Lee, decided at Appomattox, in April, eighteen hundred and sixty-five. This decision is written in blood. There never has been a new trial asked for. There never will be one granted. There never was an appeal in that case, because the decision was rendered in the highest Court that ever set upon the American soil. It was an appeal to the God of Battle, and that judgment is written in blood, and will stand forever. That is all. MR. HOWARD. Since that decision, the Supreme Court of the United States has overruled Chief Justice Grant by deciding clearly and squarely, twice, that the Constitution of the United States since the rebellion remained unimpaired, and that the principles of the Government were still in full force as they were before. MR. HILBORN. The American people will see that this decision is not overturned, and they will see that the Supreme Court of the United States shall never fritter it away. REMARKS OF MR. BROWN. MR. BROWN. Mr. President: I do not feel inclined to say a great deal upon the subject as to whether we should be considered a people or a nation. We are all here in favor of progress, but in some cases I am under the impression there is danger of going a little too rapidly, and I am under the impression that in certain cases the expressive and sensible terms of the fathers are preferable to those which are brought up at present. I agree with the gentleman from San Francisco, Mr. Casserly, upon this subject, that there is something grand and excellent, and that there is something of principle connected with the idea conveyed when speaking of the people of the United States-calling them a people. I am opposed to attempting much in the line of improvements. I was opposed to the section three that was adopted yesterday in Convention; but I voted for it in preference to other ainendments, because I thought it better. I am now under the impression that there is an amendment that was attempted to be got before the Convention yesterday, but did not succeed, that is better. It expresses the idea more completely. It is this: "The Constitution of the United States is the supreme Jaw of the land." We are convinced that this is in accordance with the relationship existing between the States and the United States. I am well aware that any language may be found objectionable in part. The State possesses certain rights that we all wish to hold, otherwise we would not be here in Convention at this time. There are rights which were not given over to the United States, and which are guaranteed to us as a State in that instrument. Therefore, we are here as a Constitutional Convention at this time, in order to make such laws-provided the same shall be adopted-as may suit the interests of this people; to make a fundamental law for this purpose. I shall be entirely in favor of the amendment of the gentleman from Alameda, Mr. McCallum, which amendment is: "The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land." REMARKS OF MR. ESTEE. MR. ESTEE. Mr. President: I took some part in moving to reconsider this matter. I asked Mr. McNutt to give the notice yesterday, for the purpose of bringing this up for the consideration of the Convention. I did it because I believed the adoption of section three as originally reported by the committee was not right. It did not meet my favor, nor do I think it meets the favor of one tenth of the members of this Convention. I agree most heartily with those gentlemen who say that the Constitution is not the charter of our liberties, but that it is the supreme law of the land. I think it was wise to reconsider the vote of yesterday, and I think it would be wise to now adopt at least a portion of section three as reported by the Committee of the Whole. I have not changed my mind from the first on this question. Now, Mr. President, there have been some references made to the political questions involved, or which are claimed to be involved, in this amendment. Some have claimed that this section was presented for buncombe. So far as I am concerned, I am willing to face all such charges. I have made no personal allusions, and have none to make. I know that there are different opinions in this Convention on this subject, but I cannot but believe there ought not to be. I do not criticise any member for his action on this or any other subject. I am here trying to do my best to have some recognition of our name, nation, and political character, inserted in this Constitution. I am not here for the purpose of talking buncombe or doing buncombe, and I do not assume that you are. I did believe that it would be unwise, or even extraordinary, for the Constitutional Convention of California to pass by this subject and make no allusion to our relations with the General Government, and for one, with a due regard for the opinions of others, I desired to insert something in this Constitution that would show both our allegiance to the General Government and our disclaimer of any right of secession. If this is flaunting the bloody flag in any gentleman's face, then I have to say that he is too sensitive to be patriotic. I did not think there was anything wrong in expressing broad, patriotic, national sentiments. I do not think it ought to offend any true American citizen, to assert in any manner or form that this is a nation. I do not doubt the sincerity of those who fought against our country, but only those who talk against it. I know men never risk their lives for a cause they do not believe in. I always did detest their doctrines, and never could believe they were right. I therefore made the attempt to put such provisions in this Constitution as should forever set at rest these questions. I wish to say it shall not be legal to secede. I know it can be done by revolution. I remember well, in this city, many years ago, a political Convention declared that the right of secession was an inherent legal right, reserved to the States under the Constitution and laws of the United States. I did not believe it then; I do not believe it now. For one, I am willing to assume all the responsibility of putting a clause into the Constitution declaring that now and hereafter it shall be unlawful to secede from the American Union. Now, sir, if this is flaunting the bloody flag, if it is offending the sensibilities of any gentleman on this floor, I am sorry for him. I am sorry that he is so sensitive upon a question which should be so near his heart. Now, Mr. President, and gentlemen of the Convention, I hope that an opportunity will be presented to amend section three as reported by the Committee of the Whole, so that it will convey that idea, so that California will march in the line of those States that have declared that it is against the settled policy of our Government to secede from the Union. The people of this State, regardless of party, ought to make this expression, for I deny that there is any party in this question, unless the gentlemen make it so. This Constitution, if adopted, shall be a declaration of principles for the people and not for a party. Democrats, Republicans, and Workingmen may, if they will unite upon one common platform, and that platform shall be a broad national one. I hold that we ought all to be willing to stand upon that principle; and if there is partisanship, gentlemen of the Convention, with all due respect to your feelings, those of you who differ will have to make the most of it, for they are my honest convictions. REMARKS OF MR. HERRINGTON. MR. HERRINGTON. I would suggest to the gentleman from San Francisco that he insert, in lieu of the amendment he has proposed, the words: "The flag of our country, the Union forever.” [Laughter.] MR. ESTEE. That would be a very good amendment, probably. MR. HERRINGTON. I am in favor of it. I would just as soon it was there as the proposition which is introduced by the gentleman and proposed to be engrafted upon the Constitution. The two are parallel precisely. If I say that I am white, this Convention would think that I was about to stultify myself. MR. TULLY. I don't know about it. MR. HERRINGTON. That is the question you are arguing now, and the dispute would be about the same. The proposition is that we are a part of the American nation. MR. MCFARLAND. It has been doubted on this floor. It has been said that we are not a part of the American nation, or that it was not a nation. MR. HERRINGTON. The boy, when he thought it was hardly discernable whether his picture was a horse or not, wrote directly underneath: "This is a horse." Everybody could see it. The gentleman from San Francisco desires to write in this instrument, we are a part of the American nation. Who ever doubted that proposition? It is sought by the power of a stream of eloquence to insert it in the Constitution that we are a part of the American nation; just as if that could make the fact any stronger. We are a part of the American nation, and I do not think that the question is debatable, therefore I do not |