Mr. LIPPETT moved that the House receive this statement as satisfactory. Mr. PRICE wished to know before this vote was taken, whether this reconcilia. tion was entirely satisfactory to these gentlemen-whether there was anything left upon their minds for an out-door settlement. He had not yet heard distinctly the perfect withdrawal of the offensive words, and the perfect acceptance of such withdrawal by the other gentleman.

Mr. JONES said the gentleman had apologized to the House, but not to him. He did not take that as an apology.

Mr. HALLECK remarked, that when the words were read as originally stated, the gentleman from San Luis Obispo had disclaimed applying them to the gentleman from San Joaquin, if that gentleman did not impugn the motives of the Committee. As he (Mr. Jones) disclaimed having made this imputation, then the offensive words were clearly withdrawn, and the difficulty was settled.

Mr. GWIN wished to know if the withdrawal of the remarks was satisfactory to the gentleman from San Joaquin. [Mr. Jones said it was.] He wished to know also, if the statement of the gentleman from San Joaquin, that he intended no personal imputation on the motives of the Committee, was satisfactory to the gentleman from San Luis Obispo? [Mr. Tefft replied that it was.] He (Mr. Gwin) then moved that the reconciliation be accepted by the House, which mo tion was adopted, and the difficulty was thus amicably adjusted.

The question then recurring on the resolution of Mr. McCarver

Mr. BOTTS said he would vote against it. The apportionment was, to his mind, one of the most important features of the Constitution. It was well known that he was opposed to the original formation of the Committee of twenty. (He hoped there was nothing personal in that.) But since it had been the pleasure of the House to form that Committee, he did not see how any portion of its work could, with propriety, be taken out of its hands. He voted for the provision a few days since, that representation should be according to population. He con. ceived that in doing so, he was giving instructions to this very Committee, to apportion the representation of this State upon that principle. It had been well objected here, that it is utterly impossible that this single portion of the forming of the Constitution can be taken out of the whole and submitted to the action of a separate committee, whilst so much depending upon it is in the hands of another. This is a portion that most requires concert and co-operation. He hoped it would not be the pleasure of the House to adopt the resulution.

The question was then taken, and the resolution was rejected.

Mr. NORTON, from a majority of the Committee on the Constitution, made a report, which was received and referred to the Committee of the Whole.

Mr. GWIN made a minority report from the same committee, which was receiv ed and referred to the same committee.

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE.

The House then resolved itself into Committee of the Whole, Mr. LIPPETT in the Chair, on so much of the report of the Committee on the Constitution as relates to the right of suffrage.

The first section of the report of the Committee being under consideration, as follows:

SEC. 1. Every white male citizen of the United States, of the age of twenty-one years, who shall have been a resident of the State six months next preceding the election, and the county, in which he claims his vote twenty days, shall be entitled to vote at all elections which are now, or hereafter may be, authorized by law.

Mr. GILBERT moved to amend as follows:

After the words "United States," and before the word "of," insert, "and every male citizen of Mexico, who shall have elected to become a citizen of the United States, under the treaty of peace, exchanged and ratified at Queretaro, on the 30th day of May, 1848.”

Mr. GILBERT said he would read from the Treaty of Peace, a couple of sections which explained in full the reasons which induced him to offer the amendment : ART. VIII. Mexicans now established in territories previously belonging to Mexico, and which remain for the future within the limits of the United States, as defined by the present treaty, shall be free to continue where they now reside, or to remove at any time to the Mexican Republic, retaining the property which they possess in the said territories, or disposing thereof, and removing the proceeds wherever they please, without being subjected, on this account, to any contribution, tax, or charge. whatever.

Those who shall prefer to remain in the said territories, may either retain the title and rights of Mexican citizens, or acquire those of citizens of the United States. But they shall be under obligation to make their election within one year from the date of the exchange of ratifications of this treaty; and those who shall remain in the said territories after the expiration of that year, without having declared their intention to retain the character of Mexicans, shall be considered to have elected to become citizens of the United States.

In the said territories, property of every kind, now belonging to Mexicans not established there, shall be inviolably respected. The present owners, the heirs of these, and all Mexicans who may hereafter acquire said property by contract, shall enjoy, with respect to it, guaranties equally ample as if the same belonged to citizens of the United States.

ART. IX. The Mexicans who, in the territories aforesaid, shall not preserve the character of citizens of the Mexican Republic, conformably with what is stipulated in the preceding article, shall be incorporated into the union of the United States, and be admitted at the proper time (to be judged of by the Congress of the United States) to the enjoyment of all the rights of citizens of the United States, according to the principles of the Constitution; and, in the meantime, shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty and property, and secured in the free exercise of their religion without restriction.

It seemed to him (Mr. Gilbert) that the section, as reported by the Committee, providing that "every white male citizen of the United States shall be entitled to the elective franchise," did not cover the whole ground. We wish to give every Mexican citizen residing in California, who becomes a citizen of the United States, the free right to vote. Under the 9th article of the treaty it would seem that they are not in fact American citizens, but require some further action of Congress to make them citizens of the United States. That article says: "shall be incorpo rated into the union of the United States, and be admitted at the proper time, (to be judged of by the Congress of the United States,) to the enjoyment of all the rights of citizens of the United States, according to the principles of the Constitution." If the Congress of the United States had done its duty to this country, it would have passed a law at the last session, admitting these citizens to all the powers and privileges of citizens of the United States. But, as it failed to do so, he (Mr. Gilbert) deemed it absolutely essential, in order to prevent any difficulty, that the amendment which he offered should be inserted in this clause. The meaning of the word "white," in the report of the Committee, was not generally understood in this country, though well understood in the United States; but that objection would be removed by the adoption of his amendment.

Mr. BOTTS said he had risen almost at the same time with his friend from San Francisco (Mr. Gilbert) to offer an amendment nearly, but not quite, indentical with that proposed by him. It was clear that by the adoption of the clause reported by the Committee, citizens of Mexico would be excluded from voting before they were made citizens of the United States by the Congress of the United States. His amendment was to insert the word "white" before "male citizens of Mexico." Mr. NORTON said he was instructed by the Committee to introduce an amend. ment to the first section. The reason why he did not do so, was because the amendment of Mr. Gilbert seemed to him to accomplish the object. He would read the amendment: after the words "United States," and before the word "of," to insert the words, "and every person who was a citizen of California after the 1st of May, 1848."

Mr. Borrs said that the Committee had made a report; they could not order it to be altered. If any amendment was made to it, it must be made by the gentle. man himself, (Mr. Norton.) He (Mr. Botts) wanted to come to the main princi. ple-that unless provision is made for these persons the clause does not admit

them. The gentleman from San Francisco (Mr. Gilbert) had left out an exceedingly important word. He (Mr. Botts) proposed to amend the amendment by inserting the word "white" before the words "male citizen of Mexico." He hoped it would be the will of the House that no citizens of the United States should be admitted to the elective franchise but white citizens. All he asked was that citizens of Mexico who had become citizens of the United States should be placed upon the same footing with ourselves; that white citizens alone should be admit ted to the right of suffrage. He was sure there would not be any objection on their part to this course.

Mr. NORIEGO desired that it should be perfectly understood in the first place, what is the true signification of the word "white." Many citizens of California have received from nature a very dark skin; nevertheless, there are among them men who have heretofore been allowed to vote, and not only that, but to fill the highest public offices. It would be very unjust to deprive them of the privilege. of citizens merely because nature had not made them white. But if, by the word "white," it was intended to exclude the African race, then it was correct and satisfactory.

Mr. BOTTS had no objection to color, except so far as it indicated the inferior races of mankind. He would be perfectly willing to use any words which would exclude the African and Indian races. 't was in this sense the word white had been understood and used. His only object was to exclude those objectionable races-not objectionable for their color, but for what that color indicates.

Mr. GILBERT hoped the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Monterey (Mr. Botts) would not prevail. He was confident that if the word "white" was introduced, it would produce great difficulty. The treaty has said that Mexican citizens, upon becoming citizens of the United States, shall be entitled to the rights and privileges of American citizens. It does not say whether those citizens are white or black, and we have no right to make the distinction. If they be Mexican citizens, it is sufficient; they are entitled to the rights and privileges of American citizens. No act of this kind could, therefore, have any effect. The treaty is above and superior to it.

Mr. GWIN would like to know from some gentleman acquainted with Mexican law, whether Indians and negroes are entitled to the privileges of citizenship under the Mexican Government.

Mr. NORIEGO understood the gentleman from Monterey (Mr. Botts) to say that Indians were not allowed to vote according to Mexican law.

Mr. BoTTs said that, on the contrary, it was because he believed they were, that the had offered the amendment. He wished to exclude them from voting. Mr. GWIN asked the gentleman from Santa Barbara (Mr. Noriego) whether Indians and Africans were entitled to vote according to Mexican law.

Mr. NORIEGO said that, according to Mexican law, no race of any kind is excluded from voting.

Mr. GWIN wished to know if Indians were considered Mexican citizens? Mr. NORIEGO said that so far were they considered citizens, that some of the first men in the Republic were of the Indian race.

Mr. Gwix had learned from the gentleman from Santa Barbara (Mr. Stearns) that there were twenty thousand Indians in Mexico. He wished to know whe

ther these twenty thousand Indians were allowed to vote?

Mr. FOSTER said that, according to Mexican law, very few of the Indian race were admitted to the right of suffrage. They are restricted by some property quali fication, or by occupation or mode of livelihood. But they are considered Mexi. can citizens according to the Constitution.

Mr. HASTINGS remarked that if, by the treaty of peace, these persons are all entitled to vote, they could not be excluded by this Convention from the enjoy. ment of that right. If they are not entitled to vote according to Mexican law, and hence according to the treaty, we should not allow them to vote. It would

1

be a most injurious measure to permit the Indians of this country to vote. There are gentlemen who are very popular among the wild Indians, who could march hundreds up to the polls. There is no distinction between an Indian here and the remote tribes. An Indian in the mountains is just as much entitled to vote as anybody, if Indians are entitled to vote. But men who have Indian blood in their veins are not for that reason Indians. There are, perhaps, many persons resident in this country who have Indian blood, but who are not considered Indians. If the motion was in order, he (Mr. Hastings) would move to defer further action upon this matter until the law of Mexico on the subject could be procured. There was no necessity for haste in passing this section.

Mr. DIMMICK trusted the motion would prevail, to defer the consideration of the subject. He held different opinions from some of the gentlemen who had spoken, as to the Mexican law in relation to the citizenship of Indians. He had supposed that Indians, in order to be entitled to the rights of citizenship in Mexico, were obliged to go through some form of naturalization, by which they became citizens. He arrived at this fact from having seen papers in the possession of Indians, who had received grants of lands, in which they went through certain forms of natu ralization. He trusted the Convention would not act hastily in this matter; for he would be very unwilling to see the Indians of this country brought to the polls to vote in our elections. At the same time, where there was here and there a good Indian, capable of understanding our system of government, he had no objection to making such provision as would entitle him to vote.

66

He

Mr. TEFFT had obtained some information in regard to this matter. was disposed to differ from the gentleman from San Jose, (Mr. Dimmick.) The Mexican laws define, in the first place, what is a Mexican citizen; any person born of Mexican parents, or under Mexican laws;" they declare that all Mexicans shall vote, having an income of $100 in labor, lands, &c. He (Mr. Tefft) would like to have further time to look into the Mexican laws, and, therefore, hoped the subject would be postponed. He desired that the House should act advisedly, and according to the treaty of peace.

Mr. Borts had no objection to deferring the consideration of the clause. He had no doubt in his mind that the statement made by the gentleman from San Luis Obispo (Mr. Tefft) was correct. But there was one doctrine urged here, that really astonished him—that the treaty of peace between the United States and Mexico, or any other treaty, could prescribe to this Convention what persons it should make voters in the State of California! The Congress of the United States could not do it. Were gentlemen not aware of that fact? They ought to be shouting hozannas to liberty, now that they were informed of it. The States of this Union are free and sovereign. They prescribe for themselves the right of suffrage. Gentlemen need not look to the treaty of peace for authority; it is competent for the people of this country to declare that no man, unless he have black hair and black eyes, shall vote. If that treaty had said, that none but the citizens of Mexico should vote, the Constitution of the United States prescribes that you shall fix your own elective qualifications. It particularly guards you against the abuse of the powers exercised by Congress.

Mr. GWIN had been endeavoring to get all the information possible on this subject. He had ascertained the fact, that by the passage of the amendment of his colleague, (Mr. Gilbert,) Indians would be permitted to vote. He found, that in the Constitution of Texas, (a State somewhat similar in the character of its population to this country,) there is the following restriction:

"Every free male person who shall have attained the age of twenty-one years, and who shall be a citizen of the United States, or who is, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution by the Congress of the United States, a citizen of the Republic of Texas, and shall have resided in this State one year next preceding an election, and the last six months within the district, county, city, or town, in which he offers to vote, Indians not taxed, Africans, and descendants of Africans, excepted, shall be deemed a qualified elector," &c.

He did not think the descendants of Indians should be excluded, but the pure uncivilized Indians should not be permitted to vote. It was stated to him, by an officer of the army, that in California there are a hundred tribes of Indians; that a few white persons control them; and that they would vote just as they were directed. He did not wish to limit the portion of the population that was in the habit of voting-those having property qualifications but the restriction should be distinctly understood and defined. He would be in favor of saying, "Indians, but not the descendants of Indians."

Mr. BOTTS accepted the suggestion of the gentleman from San Francisco (Mr. Gwin ;) instead of the word "white," to insert," and every male citizen of Mexico, Indians, Africans, and the descendants of Africans excepted."

Mr. GILBERT rose to say a word or two in reply to the remarks of the gentleman from Monterey (Mr. Botts.) He was willing to go as far as that gentleman in defence of State rights, and as far as any member in the House to protect the States from encroachments on the part of Congress, but he differed from him in the reading of this treaty, and in the reading of the Constitution of the United States. He would call the gentleman's attention to the 6th article of the Constitution, section 2d:

"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

This treaty is therefore the supreme law of the land. It appeared to him that nothing could more definitely settle the question. We cannot go beyond this treaty, and disfranchise any man who is admitted under the treaty to the rights of citi. zenship. Ferhaps, so far as regards the election of Governor and State officers, we might prescribe the rules of voting; but we cannot, in this instance, where the Constitution guaranties certain rights to these persons, who have become citizens of the United States under the treaty, deprive them of those rights. The only question here is in regard to the proper time when they shall be entitled to vote, and the object of the amendment is to fix the time beyond doubt. He wished to make no invidious distinctions as to color, but to abide by the treaty of peace and the Constitution of the United States.

Mr. HASTINGS said that, upon further reflection, he presumed the gentleman from Monterey (Mr. Botts) would observe that if we do not recognize this treaty, no treaty of peace exists. We are then at war with Mexico. We have no treaty to protect us. We are protected by no authority whatsoever but that of physical force. We came here under this treaty; gentlemen sit in this Convention under this treaty; it is in virtue of this treaty alone that we are possessed of this territory. If we carry our principle of State rights so far as to say we are wholly independent, and need not regard treaties of the United States, why not, with the same propriety, carry it further, and say we need not regard the Constitution of the United States? If we violate the stipulations of this treaty, we violate the Constitution. The gentleman from Monterey (Mr. Botts) asserts that we have a right to declare that no man shall vote unless he have black hair and black eyes. This is a principle of State rights that cannot be maintained in the present case. We must include every citizen of Mexico which the treaty of peace admits to the right of citizenship. It is impossible to arrive at any other conclusion, unless we violate the treaty. If the principle be well founded, that we may exclude certain persons who are made citizens by the adoption of the treaty, and hence who are entitled to be regarded as citizens, may we not, with the same propriety, exclude every native Californian? We cannot do it. We dare not exclude one human being who was a citizen at the time of the adoption of that treaty. Every man who was a citizen then, is a citizen now, and will be while he lives in California, unless he declares his intention to remain a citizen of Mexico. Our Constitution must, therefore, conform to the treaty, or it is null and void.