Mr. SHERWOOD said that, in regard to the difficulty before the House, it seemed to him it could be adjusted in the simplest way imaginable. If the gentleman from San Joaquin did not intend to impugn the motives of the Committee, he has liberty to make that statement to the House. The gentleman from San Luis Obispo would undoubtedly meet it by the withdrawal of the offensive remarks.

Mr. GWIN. The gentleman from San Joaquin, as he conceives, has been grossly insulted by the gentleman from San Luis Obispo. Is he to get up here and make an apology before that insult is withdrawn? It is the duty of the House to make these members settle the difficulty here. There should be no after settlement out of doors-no bloodshed resulting from what has transpired. The majesty and the power of the House should be brought to bear upon this case, and it should be settled before these gentlemen are permitted to leave their seats.

The CHAIR was of opinion that the gentleman from San Louis Opispo had apologized to the House.

Mr. GWIN said an apology to the House was not an apology to the gentleman who conceived himself insulted.

Mr. LIPPETT concurred with his friend from Sacramento (Mr. Sherwood.) He did not see any difficulty in regard to this matter. The member from San Luis Opispo has already stated to the House that the occasion of his making the offensive remarks was his understanding that the Committee to which he belonged had been attacked, and the motives of the members impugned by what fell from the gentleman from San Joaquin. The object, therefore, of the offensive remarks, was to throw back this imputation. Now, it certainly does not appear that there was any intention on the part of the gentleman from San Joaquin to cast any reflection upon the motives of that Committee. It would be a very simple matter then, for the gentleman from San Luis Obispo to state distinctly and formally to the House, that if the gentleman from San Joaquin did not intend, by anything he said, to impugn the motives of the Committee, he would withdraw his remarks. The gentleman from San Joaquin makes that statement; the gentleman withdraws his remarks, and the whole difficulty is settled.

Mr. WOZENCRAFT remarked, that the gentleman from San Joaquin had already denied having intended any personal remarks to the Committee. It was not necessary to call upon him again.

Mr. MOORE hoped his friend (Mr. Jones) would not require any apology here. If there was any misunderstanding let it be settled out of doors. He (Mr. Moore) would not trouble the House, if insulted, by asking any apology here.

Mr. Gwin said it was for that very reason he wanted it settled here. In all deliberative bodies, when a difficulty occurred, it was usual to close the doors. Having had some little experience in legislative bodies, he knew the importance of settling questions of this kind before they were permitted to go beyond the House. Another thing he wished to protest against, and that was, the sacredness of committees. He desired that there should be unlimited debate on all questions. This mammoth Committee was able to defend itself. But personalities

should be avoided.

Mr. SHERWOOD thought this matter might easily be settled in the mode indicated. He desired that it should not be permitted to go out of the House. He trusted that withont further words the gentleman from San Joaquin would state exactly what he intended by his remarks.

The CHAIR said the gentleman had already made that statement.

Mr. GWIN then moved that the gentleman from San Luis Obispo be required to withdraw the offensive words.

Mr. TEFFT said it was strange that he should be called upon to apologize to the gentleman, after having explained the motive which actuated him in using those words. If the gentleman from San Joaquin did not impugn the motives of the Committee, then the quotation had no bearing upon him. It was only applied to him on that ground.

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 moyed 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. Borts 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 conceived 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 re. lates 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 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." 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. Borrs 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 amendment 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. Borts 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 gentleman himself, (Mr. Norton.) He (Mr. Botts) wanted to come to the main principle-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 admitted 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. Borts 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. GWIN 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 qualification, 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

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 naturalization. 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 ob jection to making such provision as would entitle him to vote.

66

Mr. TEFFT had obtained some information in regard to this matter. He 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.