Mr. BROWN submitted the following, which was adopted:

Resolved, That the Secretary report to this House the amount of labor performed per day by each of the several Clerks of this House, and the amounts received and due for extra copying, and to whom.

On motion of Mr. WOZENCRAFT, the Report of the Committee on Printing, in reference to the printing of the Constitution, was taken up,

Mr. WOZENCRAFT moved that the proposal of Edward C. Kemble, ordered to be filed with the report, be accepted.

After debate, the report and accompanying papers were ordered to lie on the table.

The PRESIDENT asked for instructions from this Convention as to whether the per diem allowance of the Secretaries and Clerks should be paid from the commencement of the session, or from the days on which they were severally elected or appointed.

Thereupon Mr. HALLECK Submitted the following resolution:

Resolved, That the pay of the officers of this House commence at the date on which they commenced their duties.

Mr. NORTON moved to amend the resolution by striking out all after the word resolved, and inserting the following:

Resolved, That the officers of this Convention, except the Doorkeeper, be paid from the com 'mencement of the session.

Mr. Norton's amendment was agreed to, and the resolution, as amended, was adopted.

On motion, the consideration of the "Miscellaneous Provisions" of the Constitution were resumed; the question being on concurring in the additional section reported by the Committee of the Whole, to be inserted between the 12th and 13th sections reported by the Committee on the Constitution, viz :

All lands liable to taxation in this State, shall be taxed in proportion to their value; and this value shall be appraised by officers elected by the qualified electors of the district, county, or town in which the lands to be taxed are situated.

Mr. GWIN moved, as a substitute for the proposed section, the following:

Taxation shall be equal and uniform throughout the State. All property in this State shall be taxed in proportion to its value; to be ascertained as directed by law.

Mr. JONES moved to amend the amendment of Mr. Gwin, by adding thereto the following:

But assessors and collectors of town, county, and State taxes, shall be elected by the qualified electors of the district, county, or town in which the property taxed for State, county, or town purposes, is situated.

Mr. SHANNON. There was a certain committee appointed by resolution of the House for the purpose of making a report upon the ways and means of defraying the expenses of the State Government, to be adopted by this Convention. I do not know the exact bearing of the resolution, but I have the report of the Committee before me. There is certainly nothing contained in the report which can properly come within the Constitution; and I wish to know, as we are now upon this question of taxation, in what position the report stands. I think it was referred to the Committee of the Whole; but it certainly has never come either before the Committee or the House since that disposition was made of it. The document is rather an important one, and as we are now on the subject of taxation, I think it proper that we should act upon it now, if any action is to be taken upon it. Mr. HALLECK. I believe the amendment proposed by the gentleman from San Joaquin, (Mr. Jones,) is the question before the House. I would say with respect to it, that I prefer it by far to the provision passed by the Committee of the Whole, and I shall vote for it. I prefer it also to the substitute of the gentleman from San Francisco, (Mr. Gwin;) not that all of these propositions do not lend to the same object and produce precisely the same result, but I think the mode indicated in that amendment is the most judicious. There is no danger in leaving this mat

ter to the Legislature; but as fears have been expressed, there can be no objec tion to putting a provision of this kind in the Constitution, saying that such a course shall be pursued, which has been provided by all the Legislatures, and which is engrafted in many of the Constitutions of the States. I have never heard of an instance of assessors being sent from one extremity of the State to assess lands and property in another. When the amount of tax to be raised is fixed, the assessors in the county or districts where the lands are situated, fix what the individuals are to pay. In the Constitution of Alabama, nearly the same words are used as in the section passed in Committee of the Whole. I prefer the words proposed by the gentleman from San Joaquin.

Mr. LIPPITT. I differ somewhat from my friend from Monterey (Mr. Halleck ;) I hope to be enlightened by discussion; but as I look upon it at present, it strikes me that this subject of taxation is one that we must be careful how we interfere with by constitutional enactment. Everything pertaining to taxation should be left to the Legislature. The objects of the tax and the rule to be adopted in taxation, properly belong to the Legislature, and should be left to it; because on this very power of taxation may depend, in emergencies which we cannot foresee in this Convention, the welfare and the very preservation and existence of the State. The whole people, represented in their Legislature, should have their hands perfectly free on this subject. There is another difficulty about it. agree with my friend from Monterey, (Mr. Halleck,) that there is not much danger of any Legisla ture sending assessors from one extremity of the country to another to assess real estate; but on the other hand, suppose in any one district where there is no property but real estate held in large amounts in the hands of one individual, how easy it would be, in such a state of things, where the district is made up principally of the lands belonging to this individual, where he would have the amount to fix, to influ ence the assessment; the proportion that he would have to pay for the support of the Government would be left entirely at his option. Those dependant upon him would, necessarily, be the assessors of his own property. The case would be the same if there were two or three large property holders-they would themselves have the power of fixing the property tax which they are to pay into the public treasury. Now I do not pretend that any of these gentlemen will be guilty of any bad faith in this matter; but we have, in forming this Constitution, to provide for human nature as it is, and as it may be ; to provide against all possibility of abuse. We do not know but that this power which we leave in their hands may be abused; and I would therefore be opposed to incorporating in our Constitution any provision of that kind. I greatly prefer leaving the whole matter in the hands of the Legislature. Mr. NORIEGO. I desire to make a few observations in regard to what the gen. tleman has said. He appears to be afraid that in some districts one or two large land owners may have the power of naming as assessors whatever persons they like; and that these being nominated by their influence would value the property as the owners would direct. That difficulty could easily be removed by requiring the assessors to take an oath that they will do justice in the valuation of the property. I am not acquainted with this means of appraising prope.iy for the purpose of taxation, for it has never been customary in California; but I understand that when a merchant is called upon, his oath is taken as to the value of his taxable property. If a merchant's oath is taken, why cannot a land-owner's be taken? I do not see why bad faith should be expected in one class of persons more than another. I think the argument of the gentleman from San Francisco, (Mr. Lip. pitt,) has been sufficiently answered; and I shall vote for the amendment of the gentleman from San Joaquin, (Mr. Jones.)

Mr. TEFFT. It is with a great degree of diffidence that I rise to advocate this article. I am in favor of the section as reported by the Committee of the Whole. I believe it accomplishes all that is necessary. I had much rather that this de. fence should fall to older and abler heads, and I trust that this provision may so far meet the approbation of such members, that they may take the burden of support from my hands.

It has been said that the position occupied by California at this time is an anomalous one. It is most truly so, and in more respects than one. A very few years since, California contained a population sparse in the extreme; a large por tion proprietors of immense landed property, and yet poor; many of them desti tute; the commerce of the country limited; the country itself unsought and uncared for. How strange the change, and how extraordinary in so short a space of time! This is one of those great events of the nineteenth century, that goes to prove that time should not be measured by years, but by events. The state of things existing here at present, is wholly unparalleled in the history of the world. California is the great idea of the present age, and she promises every thing for the future. Her position is strange, yet most promising.

Let us direct our attention for a moment, to the actual state of things in this country. We see here a population ranging from 70,000 to 100,000 persons, of whom, not to exceed 15,000, are natives of the country. The great majority are a mixed population, from every part of the world, possessing divers interests, and accustomed to various systems of government. And yet, strange as it may seem, we see this immense number of persons from every nation and clime, unknown to each other, unacquainted with each other's habits and customs, living together in harmony and peace. Notwithstanding the dreadful accounts with which the pa pers of the States have been filled for the past year of outrages and wrongs committed here that murder was an amusement, and every species of crime a pas time-things as yet, almost entirely unknown to California; yet I say, we find this people uniting as in one family, all feeling that their interests are identical, and having for their only object, a desire to give to the State a Constitution and laws under which they may advance to that greatness which must follow in the natural course of events. This people, without distinction of class, have met to. gether; and as an expression of their desire, have sent to this Convention their delegates from the farthest parts of the country, to form and present to them the organic law of a new State. Reasoning from experience, it is proper to assume that the people who create the State, are ready and willing to maintain and support it. Then from the anomalous position of the country in this respect as well in all others, the question naturally follows, "How is a revenue sufficient to defray the necessary expenses of our State to be raised ?”

In this connection I do not wish to be misunderstood. It has been said that lines of distinction have been drawn upon this floor between the native Califor. nians and Americans. And it has also been said that I have drawn these lines. I disclaim entirely any such intention. I believe, and ever have believed, the in. terests of all actual residents here are identical-one and inseparable. Would it not be very strange if I, an American born, with all the love of country, of family, and of name, implanted, I trust in the breast of every true American, should so far forget myself and my country, as to advocate greater freedom and greater rights for any other race of people than for my fellow.countrymen here? I have never done this. I have only said what I again repeat, that if from the circumstances the interest of any class of people here are to be protected at the expense of any other, common justice demands that those of the native Californians shall be protected. The magnanimous spirit which abides in the breast of every true Ameri can will sustain me in this position. Gentlemen may say, that I have no right to make a supposition of this sort. I maintain that the history of the world fully bears me out in the assertion, that there is a possibility, nay a probability, that such a contingency may arise here. Where, in any country, there are two races of men different by birth and education, it is impossible to avoid a clashing of interests; and in such a state of things the argument is not far-fetched to assert, that there is great danger that the interests of the minority will be overlooked, and merged in the interest of the majority.

In view of this possibility, I again assert what I have before asserted on this floor, that any proposition that in itself, or in its consequences, cannot work injury

to any other class of persons, and yet is of vital importance to the native inhabi. tants of California, should receive a careful attention, and if found to be of that character, our unanimous approval. Such a proposition I consider the article under consideration to be.

That the native population of the country are willing to submit cheerfully to any imposition of taxes, within the bounds of justice, necessary to the support of the government of the State, is fully proven from the fact they are the supporters of this article. And I wish to be understood as believing that every class of inhabitants of California are equally willing to contribute to the support of the govern. ment which they themselves have formed. And I question very much whether any gentleman on this floor will assert, that any portion of the people in Califor nia, wherever located, or whatever their interests, are not willing to assist in the support of the Government in whatever form the necessities of the State may call for it.

It is a principle of equity that all persons should be taxed who in any manner are benefitted by the government imposing such taxes. "Consequently," says a very able writer, "those countries are best governed, in respect of taxation, where each class of inhabitants contributes proportionately to the benefit derived by it from the expenditure.' In order to a more full understanding of the matter it be comes necessary to advert to the system of taxation in general. "It is the transfer of a portion of the national products from the hands of individuals to those of the government, for the purpose of meeting the public consumption or expenditure. Whatever be the denomination it bears, whether tax, contribution, duty, excise, custom, aid, grant, or free gift, is virtually a burden imposed on individuals, either in a separate or corporate character, by the ruling power for the time being, for the purpose of supplying the consumption it may think proper to make at their expense; in short, an impost in the literal sense.

Men may talk about the right of taxation. I say that it can only be considered as matter of expediency, and not of right; and nothing further is to be regarded than its nature, the source whence it derives its value, and its effects upon the interests of the country and individuals. And this fact, I maintain, we are called upon to examine most carefully, viz: the effect which unlimited power of taxa. tion in the Legislature might work upon the interests of a certain portion of the people of this country-the proprietors of landed property. Gentlemen may urge that is improper to limit the power of the Legislature in regard to the levying of taxes that it is difficult to discriminate in this matter, &c.

It is true that taxation may be, and often is productive of good when the funds thus raised are properly applied. Yet the act of levying taxation is always attended by abuses in the outset; and this very mischief, good governments have always endeavored to render as inconsiderable to the people as possible, by the practice of economy, and by levying, not to the full extent of the people's ability, but to such extent only as is absolutely necessary. Taxation in this country must be burdensome; and what I wish to urge particularly, is, that we should provide that that burden may rest as nearly equally upon the shoulders of all as possible. And knowing this fact, viz: that, from the necessities of the case, taxation must be burdensome for some years to come, I feel deeply interested in the adoption of this article, confining the power of the Legislature to certain judicious limits, and compelling them to resort to measures that will ensure an equality of taxa. tion. Representing, as I do, a district of landed proprietors, I feel particularly interested in this matter, knowing that there is every reason to believe that unless the Legislature is restricted in its powers, that the demagogue cry against certain modes of raising revenue will be raised, restraining the Legislature and compell ing them to impose taxes which, in their practical effects, will be unequal and unjust.

Gentlemen may suggest that financial projects will be devised, and ways and means employed for filling the treasury of the State without imposing a burden

on the people. But no plan of finance can give to the government without taking either from the people or from the government in some other way. Something cannot be produced out of nothing by a mere touch of the wand, though Califor nia, in her present condition, seems to belie this axiom, yet in the collection of revenue I think it will be found to hold good.

"The best scheme of finance is to spend as little as possible, and the best tax is always the lightest;" and, I may add, the most equally divided. Admitting that taxation is the taking from individuals a part of their property for public pur poses, it is impossible to deny that the best taxes, or, at least, those that are least objectionable, are :

1. Such as are most moderate in their rates.

2. Such as are attended with least trouble and expense.

3. Such as press impartially on all classes.

4. Such as are favorable to the morality of the people.

This first position no one will deny, and I will only advert to it to show what would be the result if the Legislature were allowed to impose more than a certain amount of tax upon the proprietors of this country. Under the existing state of things, should taxation be pushed to the extreme, it would certainly and most surely have this effect: it would impoverish the large proprietors without enrich. ing the State.

We can plainly see how this can be, if we bear in mind the simple fact that each tax-payer's consumption, whether productive or not, is always limited to the amount of his revenue. No part of his revenue, therefore, can be taken from him without necessarily curtailing his consumption in the same degree. And this is particularly the case with the landholders in California, who possess large amounts of taxable property and very small revenue; impose heavy taxes, and you ruin them beyond a doubt.

Let us look at this in another light. I affirm that this article should be adopted in this country, of all others, not only as an act of justice to individuals, but as a matter of policy for the State. Let this government lean to the side of the tax. payer, and I venture to say that the future will show that lenity on the part of the government in the imposition and collection of taxes on landed property in California will prove advantageous to the interests, and consequently to the prosperity of the country.

I learn from good authority that in thirteen years from 1778, during which time Spain adopted a somewhat more liberal system of government in regard to her American dependencies, that the increase of the revenue in Mexico alone amounted to no less than one hundred millions of dollars. This is undoubtedly an extreme case, but the principle holds good everywhere; and the circumstances of this country most certainly demand a liberal system of taxation. I do not wish to be understood, Mr. President, as advocating the imposition of light taxes upon the landholders, or making them pay less than their proper share of the burden; not at all; they are willing to pay all they can, and only ask to be protected from excessive taxation. All citizens of California should enjoy the same exemption from onerous taxation.

Mr. President, with reference to the 2d head: Taxes which are attended with least trouble and expense in their collection. This refers particularly to the article regulating the collection of taxes in each county for the payment of county officers.

We come now, sir, to the important reason why this article should be adopted, viz: that taxation, in order not to be too burdensome, should be such as to press impartially on all classes. Admitting that taxation is a burden, it must necessarily weigh lightest on each individual when it bears upon all alike. When it presses inequitably upon one individual or branch of the community, it is oppressive; it is a direct incumbrance; for it prevents the particular branch or individual from competing on equal terms with the rest. Oppression to one branch of