REMARKS OF MR. CROSS.

MR. CROSS. Mr. Chairman: This right of eminent domain is perhaps the highest right exercised by government; a right under which one individual really gets the benefit of taking away the property of another without the consent of the owner. Now, if that is the highest prerogative of this goverement, it ought to be guarded, and pretty well guarded too. In framing a Constitution, we should put into it such provisions as we think will protect private rights, and the proposition of the gentleman here that it is not the proper place to guard these rights in Constitutions, is disputed by the fact that a large number of Constitutions have incorporated similar provisions. One of them has almost the words in which Mr. Dudley has proposed it. The Constitution of the State of Iowa has a provision which I will read: "Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation first being made, or secured, to be paid to the owner thereof, as soon as the damages shall be assessed by a jury, who shall not take into consideration any advantages that may result to the said owner on account of the improvement for which it is taken."

damage to the land that is taken is very small while the damage to other and if any man desires to have the benefit of the railroad he can have property not taken is very large. It seems to me that this amendment it by paying just what the railroad company asks him for enjoying the places it beyond question. How can it be said that there are any other privilege. This is one difference, or one reason why the rule for laying benefits than the benefit to the whole community? What particular out a public road and for damages in such a case is not a good rule for benefit is it to a man to have a railroad run directly through his place? damages in the case of these quasi public corporations who may take It seems to me that this amendment will put that question at rest and private property for their public use. As was suggested here, these settle it. prospective damages can be taken into consideration as well as the prospective benefits, and I will give you a true example of it from the words of one of the gentlemen who spoke on the other side. It was said that under these provisions a farm might be taken to be used as a place to deposit tailings. Suppose that can be done under the principles which they want left in the Constitution, whenever parties propose to take a farm as a place to deposit tailings upon, the man who proposes to take it as a field to dump his tailings on has the right to say to the man whose land is taken, "Sir, tailings will improve your land. True, I take your land to deposit tailings on, but in five years the tailings will make better soil than you have to-day." Then the jury take into consideration the fact that at some future time the soil will be better than it is now. That is an illustration of the result of what the gentlemen want to engraft upon this system. But if, as they say, to put this provision in here will have no effect, I ask why it is that since this question has been up certain gentlemen, whose motives and intentions are not known, are standing about the doors of our Convention, and sending in for gentlemen to come out and talk with them on this very provision? I ask, if this has nothing to do with these matters, why it is that gentlemen who have been guardians of these rights for some Now, the proposition clearly stated, as I understand it, is this: The years back are excited, and make such eloquent speeches on these matproposition first proposed to the committee amounts to this, that if the ters? I wish that some abler man than I could deal with this question, railroad company means to take half of my land, and takes it in such a some man who could rivet the attention of this body to the real way that not merely the land is taken but adjoining lands are injured, question at issue for a moment, would stand up here and advocate this then the question will take the shape stated by Mr. Barnes. If the rail-matter. But the principles we advocate are right and we must stand road runs between my house and my barn they pay for the acreage for them. That is what we are here for, and if we cannot talk--well, taken. They may also be assessed for the damage which it is to me to we know how to vote right on such propositions. [Applause.] have a railroad between the house and barn, but they may offset against that the fact that I may derive some advantage by having the railroad so located. Now the objection to leaving the definition in the shape that the benefits may be offset against the damages, is illustrated by a case like this, which came within my personal knowledge. The railroad which runs from the City of Chicago to the City of Joliet, in condemu-opposed to this amendment, but they will put this safeguard in the ing a right of way, had to take from a large building the ground upon which a wing of the building stood. Now the community were greatly interested in having that railroad constructed. Their minds were inflated with ideas of the great advantages to be derived. So they took the ground upon which the wing of the house stood and the railroad track run within thirty feet of the side of the building. When the jury came to assess the damages the evidence introduced as to the benefit which would result was to this effect: that this building was a large building; that it could be turned into a boarding-house or a place for the traveling public to put up; people would put up at the house on account of its proximity to the railroad; and that the advantages to accrue in that way would more than offset the increased danger of fire and the inconvenience of alarms at unreasonable hours, and other prospective damages. And the jury brought in no damages on account of the proximity of the railroad track to the building. But when the man came to try it on and make a boarding-house out of it, he found the station located at another place, MR. HITCHCOCK. Mr. Chairman: My reason for offering that and the result was that the man's property was ruined. The danger in amendment is to cover an interest in the county in which I live, and I this class of cases is this--and I refer to General Howard for the expe- think the same interest exists in a large portion of the State. It is to riences of southern California during the late construction of railroads in secure the right of drainage. During the Winter our land is subject to that country-that when men hear of a railroad coming they almost overflow, and now we have no means by which we can get drainage. One think that it is heaven come down to earth. Land worth five dollars individual can block up a country of ten or fifteen thousand acres of an acre is going to be worth fifteen or twenty dollars an acre. Some-land, and you cannot buy a right of way from him. There was a bill times that happens and sometimes it don't. But the ordinary jury, as to cover our case, but it was inoperative because it was considered unconto the question of benefits, do become inflamed until they give unrea- stitutional. We think there should be some way provided in this Consonable benefits, and that will be the observation and experience, I stitution by which we could have the power, by paying for the right, to think, of men who have seen the thing. I have seen railroads con-reclaim our lands. That is all. structed in a certain town where a man could hardly get the government price for his land, on account of the inflamed sentiment of the public as to benefits. But what is the fact? The land adjacent that is not taken is benefited even more. The men whose lands are immediately adjacent do not get the benefit. Who does not know that the lots one or two or three blocks off are even more benefited? Then the result of the rule amounts to this: that the man over whose ground the railroad is constructed receives really no benefit from the construction of the road, because they take from him the measure of damages, or take it in such a way that he receives no benefit. But other men, through whose land the railroad does not run, get the benefit of the railroad and stand no part of the damage.

MR. BARTON. Mr. Chairman: I do not intend to make a speech upon this proposition at all; but, Mr. Chairman, I desire to say a few words. If the members of this Convention desire to do the people of this State a good-if they desire to render the people of this State a safeguard-they will not listen to the sophistries of the gentlemen Constitution in behalf of the people. I shall support this amendment, and these are the reasons why I shall support it: because I believe that it is the only safeguard that can be placed in this connection. THE CHAIRMAN. The question is on the adoption of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Solano, Mr. Dudley. The amendment was adopted.

THE CHAIRMAN. The question recurs on the amendment offered by the Committee on Judiciary as amended.

MR. HITCHCOCK. Mr. Chairman: I have an amendment to offer.
THE SECRETARY read:

"Private property shall not be taken for private use, with or without compensation, unless by the consent of the owner, except for right of way for drainage ditches across the lands of others for agricultural, mining, and sanitary purposes, in such manner as may be prescribed by law."

MR. TERRY. Mr. Chairman: I offer an amendment to that, to follow after the last word of that.

THE SECRETARY read:

"Provided that any resident of this State who is, or who has filed his declaration of intentions to become, a citizen of the United States, and who is not the owner of one hundred and sixty acres of land, may enter upon, take, and hold, for the purpose of cultivation or residence, any unoccupied or uncultivated land in this State, not exceeding one hundred and sixty acres, upon his paying the owner thereof, or depositing to his credit in a solvent bank, the value of such land, as the same is entered upon the assessment roll for State and county taxes made last before such entry, with twenty per cent. in addition to such assessment value, and from the time of such payment or deposit the party so entering shall be the owner of, and be entitled to the exclusive possession

MR. TINNIN. Mr. Chairman: I rise to a point of order. It is that the amendment is not germane to the subject before the house.

THE CHAIRMAN. This amendment was only read for information. It was offered as an amendment to the amendment offered by the gentleman from San Joaquin, Mr. Hitchcock. The Chair is of the opinion that both are in violation of Rule Twenty-eight, which says: "No subject different from that under consideration shall be admitted under color of amendment."

Now, as to this legislative provison, it seems to me that in the main it is a very good one. But we have not merely to inquire as to the quality of the present legislative enactment. We have to inquire as to the cerand use of such land." tainty of its being a permanent provision. If this enactment of the Legislature is in that shape that no railroad influence can shake it; if it is in that shape that twenty-five years from now it will stand just as it does to-day, it might answer the purpose very well. But who is not familiar with the fact that not only in this State, but in every State in the Union, the railroad power has been strong enough, whenever it took the matter thoroughly in hand, to control legislation, and to get such legislation as it seemed to want. Now, sir, we have a duty to perform here in making such a permanent provision in regard to this matter as MR. WATERS. Mr. Chairman: I move to amend section fourteen so seems to us necessary and right. The question is asked, what difference that it will read: "Private property shall not be taken for public use is there between the method of assessing damages for laying out a pub-without just compensation having first been made to, or ascertained and lic road and for laying out a railroad? My idea of the matter is paid into the Court for the owners." this: when you have laid out a public road every man has a right to I will state briefly the object of my offering this amendment. The the benefits of that road without cost or expense, and it is maintained reason is this: the amendment proposed by the Committee on Judiciary by the public taxes. But when we come to talk about a railroad, rail-is good, with the one exception that it allows the property to be taken roads are not built for the public good. They are built for private gain, when the complaint is first filed in the suit, by making a deposit in

would stand as reported, and that the amendment of the gentleman from
Solano would come in after it. If I understood it properly, the section
reported by the Committee on Judiciary still stands and is not stricken
out. Now, then, if I can hear it read, and if we can all hear it read, we
will understand it.
THE SECRETARY read:

"Amend section fourteen, by adding the following, namely: No right
of way shall be appropriated to the use of any corporation other than
municipal, until full compensation therefor be first made in money, or
secured by a deposit of money, to the owner, irrespective of any benefit
from any improvement proposed by such corporation, which compensa-
tion shall be ascertained by a jury in a Court of record, as shall be pre-
scribed by law."
MR. HAGER. Mr. Chairman: I ask that the proposition be read as
amended. The Secretary reads the amendment. I want the proposi-
tion read as amended.
THE SECRETARY read:

Court. Now, it seems to me that is not the object of this Convention, but that is the way it reads, and it has been adopted. In other words, it says the taking shall be when the money is paid into Court as security. Now, as I understand it, the Convention does not wish the deposit put there as security. It seems to me that this Convention adopted that amendment without consideration, or without understanding it. That is its effect, unless I have mistaken its reading. Now, the reason why I support this amendment in preference to that part of the old Constitution upon the same subject is this: this clause, as Judge Cooley says, is liable to construction, one way or the other, and while we are sitting here we should do away with the chance of misconstruction. I think we should make the terms so plain that the Supreme Court, or the Supreme Court lawyers, may not be able to get around it. It says that the damages shall first be ascertained and paid into Court, where they can get them, after being ascertained by the jury; that he can receive his pay, if he desires to receive his pay, or he can let it remain there until the final termination of the case. I think that that is all we could ask, and it seems to me that the Convention should adopt it. But the amendment you have already adopted, although it allows them to take the property of that man, he may not have the right to go there and draw down the money. I think that is a mistake you have made. MR. BARNES. Mr. Chairman: During the remarks of the gentle-made in money, or secured by a deposit of inoney to the owner, irreman from Nevada, Mr. Cross, I had occasion to speak to a member in another part of the room, and I went there and did not hear his speech, at least not all of it. But following that the amendment was adopted. I think that there should be some little care about the adoption, and certainly about the phraseology of an article that is to stand for so long a time.

[Cries of "louder."]

SEC. 14. Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation having been first made to or paid into Court for the owner. No right of way shall be appropriated to the use of any corporation other than municipal, until full compensation therefor be first spective of any benefit from any improvement proposed by such corporation, which compensation shall be ascertained by a jury in a Court of record, as shall be prescribed by law.

MR. HAGER. It reads as I suppose it was intended to be. That is the first proposition as reported by the Committee on Judiciary stands as it was reported by them: "Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation having been first made to or paid A very distinguished gentleman was once making a speech and some- into Court for the owner." In that it is provided that private property body kept halloing "louder, louder," and he said he doubted not that shall not in any case be taken without compensation being made to or at the last day, when the heavens should be rolled away as a scroll, and paid into Court for the owner. That stands as it is. Then comes the the elements were melted away with fervent heat, and men should be succeeding amendment about the right of way. Now, there may be a summoned to the judgment, there would be some fellow from that part little conflict between the two propositions. The one relating to the of the hall halloing "louder, louder." I think if the gentlemen wish right of way seems to adopt a rather different rule in order to ascertain to listen they can hear. But with reference to this amendment, I wish the damages from what the first proposition does in regard to private it to be understood that I desired, and I so stated, to see the results of property. That is, that one must be paid to the owner, or into Court for the statutes and the decisions of the Supreme Court crystallized into this the owner, and that the other seems to squint at the idea that it may be Constitution, so that they will stay there. That was my idea, and I in some way secured. It would open the door for a bond, or something supposed that the debate would continue long enough to enable us to of that kind. I think it should read right; that compensation being effect that object. I would suggest now that this section be referred paid to the owner, or being placed in Court for him, he could be able to back to the committee for to-night, to present to-morrow a properly obtain it; and so that those who wish to make improvements shall pay phrased amendment to the section, if the committee so desire, which it after the jury has made the award of the proper compensation. It shall fix it so as to conform to the statutes as now determined by the ought to be secured beyond a peradventure that he should have a right to get the money out whenever they are put in possession.

Courts of the State.

MR. DUDLEY, of Solano. Mr. Chairman: That amendment that I offered is couched in the identical language contained in the Constitution of Alabama. i did not trust my own ability to express ideas in language to suit the gentlemen here.

MR. BARNES. Mr. Chairman: I did not mean to reflect on his language or upon the law of it as it stands, only to put it together properly. was not criticising any particular thing. MR. DUDLEY, of Solano. Mr. Chairman: I do not know what objection there is to it. The first part of the section stands exactly as reported by the Committee on Judiciary. The latter part of the section reads: “The right of way shall be appropriated to the use of any corporation, other than municipal, until full compensation therefor be first made in money, or secured by a deposit of money to the owner, irrespective of any benefit from any improvement proposed by such corporation; which compensation shall be ascertained by a jury in a Court of record, as shall be prescribed by law." Now I have no pride at all with regard to the manner in which the ideas shall be expressed. I only ask that this Convention shall stand by the decision it has made. I have no objection to its being couched in other language. But I believe, that considering the fact that it is expressed in English, that one part is written by the Committee on Judiciary, and that the balance is expressed in the language that has been adopted in the Constitution of the State of Alabama, you might as well stand by it.

MR. EDGERTON. Mr. Chairman: I have but one word to say. The author of this amendment, in his zeal to wrestle with a question that has exercised the finest jurists in this country, who have sought to place this right of eminent domain on a footing that would be just to the people and to those who want to condemn, has run off to a foreign Constitution and abstracted a provision which restores the whole question to the place where it was before this last legislation was had. The gentlethat it robs the owners of private property of the bencfit of every benefiman from San Bernardino, Mr. Waters, is entirely right when he says cent provision as contained in the laws as they stand. Any railroad corporation, under this amendment, can walk into any man's farm and file a bond and take his property and go ahead with it. A deposit of money or security

MR. DUDLEY, of Solano. Secured by a deposit of money.

MR. ESTEE. Mr. Chairman: I certainly think that this thing is a little mixed, and I think that in order to clearly express the views of this Convention, as indicated by the adoption of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Solano, that it would be wise to re-refer it to the committee to formulate it so that it will express the idea desired. Certainly, I hope it will not be adopted in its present shape. In that respect I agree with the gentleman from San Bernardino, Mr. Waters, and to some extent with the gentleman from Sacramento. I move that the

Committee on Judiciary, with instructions to formulate it so as to contain the ideas expressed in the amendment.

THE CHAIRMAN. The question is on the adoption of the amend-committee rise and recommend that this section be re-referred to the ment offered by the gentleman from San Bernardino, Mr. Waters. MR. DUDLEY. Mr. Chairman: I would like to ask whether, if this amendment is adopted, my amendment will stand as a part of the section.

THE CHAIRMAN. No, sir; it will not. If this is adopted it will strike out the amended section.

MR. ESTEE. I rise to a point of order: that there can be no amendment made to it that strikes that amendment out. If I understand that the amendment proposed by the gentleman from San Bernardino will entirely wipe out the amendment that was presented by the gentleman from Solano, I hold that it is out of order.

MR. WATERS. If that is the case, in view of the fact that I do not think the Convention desires to put in a clause that this is a mere security to be placed in Court, and as that seems to be the evident construction,

MR. EDGERTON. Mr. Chairman: I have one word to say in regard to the reference. I wish to advise the Convention of this fact, that this subject was most maturely considered in the committee. I do not see any use in sending it back to the committee, because it would undoubtedly come back from them with the same recommendation that they have made.

MR. ESTEE. Let it come; but we do not want that section as it now is to go into the Constitution.

THE CHAIRMAN. The question is not debatable.
MR. BARTON. I desire to make an amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN. The question is not debatable.

MR. BARTON. I wish to amend the gentleman's motion, that it be

I move that the vote by which that amendment was adopted be recon-referred back to the Committee on Preamble and Bill of Rights.

sidered.

MR. HERRINGTON. I second the motion.

MR. ROLFE. Mr. Chairman: I think the same object can be accomplished in a different way, if the gentleman will change his amendment by simply moving to insert the two words "ascertained and" between the words "or" and "paid."

THE CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from San Francisco, Mr. Estee, moves that the committee rise and report this section to the Convention, and request that it be referred to the Committee on Judiciary. The motion was lost.

THE CHAIRMAN. The Chair will state the precise condition of the question: Section fourteen, as reported by the Committee on Judiciary MR. WATERS. I would state to the gentleman that only having heard and Judicial Department, is reported as an amendment. It has not been it read, and not having it before me, I cannot put in the amendment | adopted by the committee. It stands as an amendment offered. The gentleman from Solano moved an amendment to that amendment, and MR. HAGER. Mr. Chairman: I would like to hear the proposition it was adopted. The gentleman from San Bernardino, Mr. Waters, read in a way that we can hear it. I am unable to tell what it is. I moves to strike out and insert a substitute which he has offered, and thought that the amendment as reported by the Committee on Judiciary | which is as follows: "Private property shall not be taken for public use

there.

MR. MCCALLUM. I understand that the question is on the motion Ayers,

to reconsider.

Barbour, MR. WATERS. I withdraw that motion to reconsider. Barry, MR. BARBOUR. I would like to know how on a question of order Barton, that amendment was withdrawn?

THE CHAIRMAN. The amendment is not withdrawn. The question is on the adoption of the amendment offered by the gentleman from San Bernardino, Mr. Waters, to strike out the whole of this section as amended, and insert this substitute, which I have just read. The amendment was lost.

THE CHAIRMAN. The question now recurs on the adoption of the amendment offered by the Committee on Judiciary, as amended. MR. LAINE. I move to reconsider the vote by which the last amendment was adopted. It seems to me that the word "secured" has crept in there. It will drive us back to the place we have been laboring out of for the last ten years. MR. HOWARD. Mr. Chairman: He is entirely mistaken. The language employed in the amendment of the gentleman from Solano is: Until full compensation therefor be first made in money, or secured by a deposit of money." It is secured by the money paid into Court. All that any of the provisions which have been adopted or proposed will effect is simply that. The money is paid into Court, and the money remains in Court for security. There is no ambiguity about it. There is no trouble about it.

MR. WHITE. I think that word "secured" is most objectionable,

and I trust the Convention will reconsider it.
MR. DUDLEY, of Solano. I ask leave to amend it by striking out
the words, "secured by a deposit of money," and inserting the words,
"or deposited in Court." Then it will conform to the section as reported
by the Committee on Judiciary; that is, in that respect it will be just
like their report.

THE SECRETARY read:
"Until full compensation therefor be first made in money, or deposited
in Court for the owner."

mittee.

Beerstecher,
Belcher,
Bell,
Blackmer,
Brown,
Burt,
Caples,
Casserly,
Charles,
Condon,
Cowden,
Crouch,
Davis,
Dean,
Dowling,
Doyle,
Dudley, of Solano,
Dunlap,
Edgerton,
Estey,
Evey,
Farrell,
Fawcett,
Filcher,
Finney,
Freeman,
Freud,
Garvey,
Glascock,
Gorman,

THE CHAIRMAN. It will require unanimous consent of the com- Grace, Graves, MR. WATERS. I move to amend that so that it will read: "Until Hager, full compensation therefor be first made in money, or ascertained and Hale, paid into Court for the owner."

MR. SHAFTER. Mr. Chairman: I call attention to the fact that this provision of the Alabama Constitution has been repealed for several

Hall,

Overton,

MR. DUDLEY, of Solano. I am willing to accept that amendment if the committee is willing.

Harvey,

Porter,

THE CHAIRMAN. It cannot be done except by general consent.
No objection was made.

years.

THE CHAIRMAN. The question recurs on the adoption of the
amendment offered by the Committee on Judiciary as amended. The
Secretary will read the section as it now stands amended.
THE SECRETARY read:

SEC. 14. Private property shall not be taken for public use without
just compensation having been first made to or paid into Court for the
owner, and no right of way shall be appropriated to the use of any
corporation other than municipal until full compensation therefor be
first made in money, or ascertained and paid into Court for the owner,
irrespective of any benefit from any improvement proposed by such
corporation; which compensation shall be ascertained by a jury in a
Court of record, as shall be prescribed by law.
The amendment was adopted.

MR. MCCALLUM. I move that the committee rise and report this article to the Convention as amended. Carried.

IN CONVENTION.

THE PRESIDENT. Gentlemen: The Committee of the Whole have instructed me to report that they have had under consideration the Article on Preamble and Declaration of Rights, have adopted sundry amendments thereto, and ask the Convention at what time it will receive and act upon the report of the Committee of the Whole.

MR. VAN DYKE. I move that four hundred and eighty copies of the amendments adopted in Committee of the Whole, together with the plan as reported by the Committee on Preamble and Bill of Rights, be printed, and that the amendments be printed in brackets so that they can be distinguished.

MR. EDGERTON. I hope the gentleman will withhold that motion
for the present.
MR. VAN DYKE. I wish to state that the copies are all exhausted.
We want some printed with the amendments adopted in Committee of

the Whole.

The motion prevailed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Dudley, of San Joaquin, Miller,

LEAVE OF ABSENCE.

Mr. President.

Mills,
O'Donnell,
Rhodes,

Smith, of Santa Clara,

Townsend,

Wilson, of Tehama,
Wilson, of 1st District,
Winans.

Leave of absence was granted to Messrs. Cross, Smith of Santa Clara, O'Donnell, Gregg, and Chapman, each for one day, to Mr. Holmes for three days, and to Mr. Winans for two days.

MR. HUESTIS. I move that the reading of the Journal be dispensed with.

So ordered.

A CORRECTION.

MR. JOYCE. Mr. President: In yesterday's Journal I am incorrectly reported as having moved to lay the resolution on the table, and I want it fixed. The resolution was number sixty-seven.

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS.

stitution are now in order.
THE PRESIDENT. Propositions and resolutions relating to the Con-

RELATIVE TO RAILROADS.

MR. HUGHEY introduced the following proposed amendment to the
Constitution, in relation to purchase of railroads by the State:
ARTICLE

SECTION. The Legislature shall, at its first session after the adoption of this Constitution, pass all necessary laws to submit to a direct vote of the qualified voters of this State, the proposition, that the State shall take possession by condemnation and purchase, at a fair and just valuation, of all railroads, their franchises, rights, and privileges, which may be in operation in this State, paying therefor in bonds of the State, bearing six per cent. interest, and payable in full in thirty (30) years or sooner if the State desire. Said railroads so purchased to be thereafter

MR. GRACE. I move that the Convention adjourn.
The motion prevailed, and at four o'clock and fifty minutes P. M. the the property of the State, to be operated for the benefit of the State by
Convention stood adjourned until to-morrow at ten A. M.

FORTY-THIRD DAY.

SACRAMENTO, Saturday, November 9th, 1878. The Convention met in regular session at ten o'clock a. M., President Hoge in the chair.

The roll was called, and members found in attendance as follows:

duly appointed Superintendents and officers.
Referred to the Committee on Corporations other than Municipal.

UNITED STATES CURRENCY.

MR. BARTON introduced the following proposition, relating to United States currency:

Resolved, That a clause be inserted in the Constitution declaring that all moneys issued by the Government of the United States of America shall be a legal tender for all debts, public and private, and that no law shall ever be enacted by the Legislature of this State to discriminate against the currency of the National Government.

Referred to the Committee on Legislative Department.

ON EDUCATION.

MR. BARRY introduced the following proposition to amend sections one and two of article nine:

report of the Committee of the Whole ought to be printed and placed before us by that time. If we delay another week the consideration of the propositions contained in that report, there will be two weeks disSECTION 1. A Superintendent of Public Instruction shall, at the gen-cussion upon it. I therefore move that it be made the special order for eral election for Judicial, State, and county officers, to be held in the Monday morning, at ten o'clock. year eighteen hundred and seventy-nine, and every four years thereafter, at such general elections, be elected by the qualified voters of the State, and shall enter upon the duties of his office on the second Monday of January ensuing his election.

The following shall be prefixed to section two:

"The diffusion of knowledge, as well asof virtue, among the people, being essential to the preservation of their rights and liberties, it shall be the duty of the Legislature to promote public schools, and to adopt all means which they may deem necessary and proper to secure to the people the advantages and opportunities of education." Referred to the Committee on Education.

NOTICE TO AMEND RULE FIFTY-SIX.

MR. TINNIN. Mr. President: I give notice of a motion to amend Rule Fifty-six, by striking out the words, "and that the previous question shall not be moved."

REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON PRINTING.

Lost.

PARDONING POWER.

MR. FREEMAN. I move that the Convention resolve itself into
Committee of the Whole, for the purpose of taking into consideration
the report of the Committee on Pardoning Power.
Carried.

IN COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE.

THE CHAIRMAN. The Secretary will read the section as reported by the committee.

THE SECRETARY read:

SEC. 13. The Governor shall have the power to grant reprieves, and the Governor and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court shall have power to grant pardons and commutations of sentence, after conviction, for all offenses, except treason and cases of impeachment, upon such conditions, and with such restrictions and limitations as they may think proper, subject to such regulations as may be provided by law relative to the manner of applying for pardons. Upon conviction for treason, the Gov

MR. SHOEMAKER. Mr. President: I ask leave to make a report ernor shall have power to suspend the execution of the sentence until the from the Committee on Reporting and Printing, out of order. THE SECRETARY read:

MR. PRESIDENT: Your Committee on Reporting and Printing, to whom was referred the matter of the cost of printing for the Convention up to and including the nineteenth day of October last, beg leave to report that they have had the same under consideration, and find the following facts:

Due to employés in the composing and press rooms of the State Printing
Office, as per time book..

Cost of paper, estimated on each job_--

Folding, stitching, and binding (at contract price).

Making a total of_____

$674 23
488 90
226 50

$1,389 63

You committee report that the estimates are correct, and that the amount should be allowed as a proper charge. Respectfully somitted.

SHOEMAKER, Chairman.

THE PRESIDENT. The report will lie on the table. The Convention has now gone through the order of business, what is the further pleasure of the Convention?

MR. VAN DYKE. Mr. President: I move that the consideration of the article on Preamble and Bill of Rights in Convention be set for Monday next, at two o'clock.

MR. LARKIN. I desire to hear some reasons.

MR. VAN DYKE. There is nothing set for Monday, and they cannot be printed in time for the morning session.

THE PRESIDENT. The question is on the motion of the gentleman from Alameda, Mr. Van Dyke.

Lost.

MR. VAN DYKE. I move, then, to set it for ten o'clock on Monday, immediately after the reading of the Journal.

MR. LARKIN. I ask if it is not printed now.

MR. VAN DYKE. No, sir, it has been ordered printed, but has not gone to the printer yet.

MR. FILCHER. Mr. President: It seems to me to be a bad idea. Generally, the Convention is very thin on Monday morning. Last Monday morning there was only just a quorum here. There will be a small number present on next Monday morning. I think this report of the committee should be considered when the Convention is full, or nearly so. Monday morning is a very bad time to set it.

MR. VAN DYKE. The greater portion of it will be acted upon without any discussion. If any of the sections produce discussion and voke amendments, then action upon them can be postponed. I would like to have it set down for Monday.

case shall be reported to the Legislature at its next meeting, when the Legislature shall either pardon, direct the execution of the sentence, or grant a further reprieve. The Governor shall communicate to the Legislature, at the beginning of every session, every case of reprieve or pardon granted, stating the name of the convict, the crime of which he was convicted, the sentence and its date, the date of the pardon and reprieve, and the reasons for granting the same. Neither the Governor and Chief Justice, nor the Legislature, shall have power to grant pardons and commutations of sentence in any case where the convict has been previously thrice convicted of felony.

THE CHAIRMAN. The amendment is that of the gentleman from Alameda, Mr. Campbell, to strike out "Chief Justice of the Supreme Court," and insert in lieu thereof, "Attorney-General."

MR. BLACKMER. Mr. Chairman: At the time this article was under discussion I had offered an amendment to the amendment. THE CHAIRMAN. That will come in after this amendment. MR. MCCALLUM. Mr. Chairman: Is another amendment in order? THE CHAIRMAN. An amendment to an amendment is in order. MR. MCCALLUM. I move to amend so as to make the Governor, the Chief Justice, and the Attorney-General, the Pardoning Board. I will write it out. That is one of the improvements in other Constitutions that I read here the other day.

MR. MCFARLAND. Mr. Chairman: My recollection is that I offered an amendment, so as to strike out the word "Chief Justice," so as to leave it exactly as it was in the old Constitution.

THE CHAIRMAN. The amendment pending is that offered by the gentleman from Alameda, Judge Campbell.

MR. MCFARLAND. I certainly offered an amendment so as to leave it to the Governor.

THE CHAIRMAN. The gentleman simply offered a verbal amendment. The Chair directed him to send it up in writing, and before the written amendment was sent up the Convention adjourned.

MR. MCCALLUM. I send up my amendment now in writing.
THE SECRETARY read:

"Add after the word 'Chief Justice,' in line two, and before the word
'shall,' in same line, the words and the Attorney-General.'"
MR. MCCALLUM. Mr. President: The section will then read as
follows:

MR. HAGER. Mr. President: I voted against the motion, for the reason that I thought we might consider it to-day. If it has gone to the printer I do not think we can act upon it to-day. We have gone through it once in the Committee of the Whole. If it be not printed, I do not think we can act upon it to-day, and therefore I move to reconsider the motion for setting it for Monday, at two o'clock. The printer should have had it here this morning, as the order to print was made yesterday. I understand it is against the rule to reconsider, and I move that it be postponed until Monday, at half-past two o'clock. MR. MCCALLUM. I voted against the motion to make it a special order, because I didn't see where we would accomplish anything by doing so. If the report should be printed and upon the tables on Monday morning, or if it should come in to-day, we can take it up when-General, nor the Legislature, shall have power to grant pardons or comever it comes. We have a number of special orders, and there is no necessity in making this the special order. Take it up when it comes in is the best way.

SEC. 13. The Governor shall have the power to grant reprieves, pro-and the Governor, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the AttorneyGeneral, shall have power to grant pardons and commutations of sentence, after conviction, for all offenses, except treason and cases of impeachment, upon such conditions, and with such restrictions and limitations, as they may think proper, subject to such regulations as may be provided by law relative to the manner of applying for pardons. Upon conviction for treason, the Governor shall have power to suspend the execution of the sentence until the case shall be reported to the Legislature at its next meeting, when the Legislature shall either pardon, direct the execution of the sentence, or grant a further reprieve. The Governor shall communicate to the Legislature, at the beginning of every session, every case of reprieve or pardon granted, stating the name of the convict, the crime of which he was convicted, the sentence and its date, the date of the pardon and reprieve, and the reasons for granting the same. Neither the Governor, Chief Justice, and Attorneymutations of sentence in any case where the convict has been previously thrice convicted of felony.

MR. VAN DYKE. It was on the file this morning, and my purpose was to get rid of it.

My colleague moved to strike out "Chief Justice" and insert "Attorney-General." My proposition is to add the Attorney-General to the Board. In looking over the Constitutions of the different States, I have found no place where there was anything in the nature of a Commission or Board of Pardons where it did not consist of more than two persons. general feature, that the Board shall consist of the Governor, Chief Justice, and Attorney-General, and that any two of these, of which the Governor must always be one, shall have power to grant pardons.

MR. MCCALLUM. It will come up in its regular order. THE PRESIDENT. The question is on the motion of the gentleman from San Francisco, Judge Hager, to make it the special order for half-I think the section requires some further amendment, but that is the past two o'clock on Monday.

MR. FREEMAN. Mr. President: I find that nearly a week ago we had printed all the report of the Committee of the Whole except these sections which were referred to the Judiciary Committee. I see no reason why we cannot take up and consider those sections which were printed a week ago.

The motion was lost.

MR. NOEL. Mr. President: I now move that it be made the special order for Monday morning, at ten o'clock. It seems to me that the

THE CHAIRMAN. The Chair is of the opinion that the amendment is not now in order. It will be in order if this amendment of the gentleman from Alameda, Judge Campbell, is voted down. The question is now on that amendment, to strike out "Chief Justice" and insert "Attorney General." Lost.

MR. MCFARLAND. The committee will notice that my amendment strike out this whole clause, and insert other words in the place. I simply leaves the matter in the hands of the Governor. would like to ask what position my amendment is now in, whether it THE SECRETARY read the amendment: should not now come up under this head.