Daily national Democrat., 1861-05-19
ilailp slatlonaln nemotrat.
-.,oo ;s done TO the Memory of BrOd-
JuSttOO 40 arick.

7, ,be Senate on Thursday, the special or
,orhf - the day, the Broderick expunglng res
der VI rnon motion of Mr. Sharp. were
ou1o"Tr -, With the substitute offered by the
Committee. ..
VII The question being taken, the previous
question was sustained.
quTI The substitute offered Try the Committee
read as follows:
CONCURRENT RESOLUTIONS.
WHEREAS. The Legislature of the State OF
,.tnrn;a at is tenth session, on the Sd OF
T"hrUarv. DSI" 1859, passed series of concurrent
ro.olutions prefaced by preamble, which
'e"nn,hle and resolutions are in the words
P,1an;no: Pream;T Here followed the preamble and
r,0o,utions already published.
re'o,ui ~ whereas, Said preamble is untrue, in
Ioh n" "a the resolutions of instruction re-
ssu' "5 70 therein were not received by the
1st,e lIn Dayid c. Broderick until after his vote
,ion Loan cast in the Senate of the United
uaotas usu against the Lecompton Constitution ;
SOD aUd whereas, TIE people of this State and
= tbe United States have, by very large
;aritv. indorsed the course of the Hon. ID.
n Frederick against the Kansas policy of
,Lo late President of the United States, James
buchanan
And wherers, Said preamble and resolu-
tious were inconsderate, and only intended
TO wound the feelings of CALIFORNIA; honest,
able and faithful representative in the Senate
of the United States; therefore,
Be it.Resolved, by the Senate, the Assem-
by concurring. That the preamble and reso-
mions hereinbefore recited, passed Feb. Sd,
1879. so far as the same relate to the Hon.
David G. Broderick, are hereby declared to
be unjust to his character while living, and
derogatory to the honorable and patriotic
fame which true and faithful record of his
acts will always accord to his memory.
Resolved, That said preamble and resolu-
tops, passed Feb. 8, 1859, were not true in
fact, and are not sanctioned by the people of
the State Of California, but on the contrary
the people of the State cherish, with pro-
found respect, the memory and character of
the late Hon. David G. Broderick, adorned
as bis character emiucntly was, by integrity,
frmness and patriotism.
Question on the adoption of the substitute,
It was carried by the following vote:
Ayes-Burbank, Chase, Clark, De Long
Edgerton, Gallagher, Harvey, Haynes, Hea-
cock, Hill, Irwin, Leet. Logan, Phelps,
Rhodes, Ryan, Shafter, Sharp, Watson-l9.
Noes-Denver, Dickinson, Eagan Frank
lin, Merritt, Parks, Thornton, Warmcastle,
Watkins, Williamson, Vance-1l.
Mr. Eagon, when his name was called said
he wished to explain his vote He was will
ing to believe that Mr.. Broderick did not re-
ccive those instructions until it was too late
to act upon them; but when the resolutions
said the people of the United States and this
StAtehad indorsed the course of Mr.. Broder-
lex against the Kansas policy of james
Buchanan, such statement, particularly in
relation to the people of this State, was not
So The people of this State never had en-
d0rsed the course of Mr.. Broderick upon the
Kansas question. The question was twice
before the people, and was twice decided
against him by an overwhelming majority
and since that time the people had decided
upon another question, which was entirely
different from that question.
Mr. Gallagher said it was well known that
he had not been an advocate of Mr. Broder-
lex, or his course; but as Mr. Broderick was
dead for one he should forget the past diff
terences of opinion and vote aye.
Mr. Harvey said he should have preferred
to have voted fairly and squarely in favor
Of the Assembly Expunging Resolutions, and
he believed now, that in justice the Assem-
by resolutions ought to be adopted but as
this substitute had been adopted, and as the
previous question had been sustained he
should, he supposed, be obliged to be content
with voting for the substitute.
Mr. Haynes said he should vote in favor of
tle resolutions from the fact that he thought
Mr., Broderick was right in the position he
LOOK at the time upon the question. He (Mr.
llaynes) thought SO now, and had always
thought so. lie should vote aye.
Mr.. Ryan, when his name was called, said
ne should have approved the course of Mr..
frederick if the issue had been made within
the party lines. But now, as Mr. Broderick
was dead, we ought to be magnanmous. He
should vote for the resolution, but at the same
time wished to say that if it had been open
to amendment he should have oife, ed an
amendment. He voted aye.
Nr. Thornton said after the resolution had
been last discussed in the Senate it was re-
terrel to a Special Committee of three, con-
Sstng of Messrs. Sharp Clark and himself
Those two gentlemen of the Committee had
offered this substitute, and he (Mr. Thornton)
dissented from the substitute, and should vote
no.
Question upon the passage of the resolu-
Nons Substitute resolutions) 1t was carried
by The following vote:
;Ayes-Burbank, Chase, Clark, De Long,
Edgerton, Gallagher, Harvey, Haynes, Hea-
cock, Hill, Irwin, Leet, Phelps, Rhodes, Ryan,
Shatter, Sharp, Watson-IS.
Noes-Denver, Dickinson, Eagon, Frank
lin, Logan, Merritt, Parks Thornton, Warm
castle, Watkins, Watt, Williamson, Vance
air. Logan, when his name was called, said
ne desired to explain his vote. He agreed
with the remarks made by Mr.. Burbank the
other day, that it would do no good, either to
the living or the dead, to take action in the
matter; for whatever might be our opinions,
would not change public sentiment in rela-
ton to Mr.. Brodeiek, for men would main
tain their own opinion upon all such matters
lie (Mr. Logan believed it was a part of his
tory that Mr.. Broderick did not receive the
Instructions before he voted against the Le-
compton Constitution but at the same time
IL there was any guilt attached to disobedi-
ence of instructions, Mr.. Broderick was Just
as euilty as if he had received the Instructions
Ia time. He (Mr. Logan did not alIege any
cHme-did not intend to express an opinion
upon the subject of instructions, but was
ea'lsfed that if Mr.. Broderick had received
'ne Instructions in time he would not have
ooeyed' lie should vote against the resolu-
NohS because, in his opinion, it would do no
good to the living or the dead, nor would it
change public sentiment.
Mf. Merritt said he would briefly state his
reasons why he should vote against the reso-
lu!'ons. lie had stated his objections to the
G;e'glnal resolutions; they were now changed
~ ~ form, but they were not in such form as
pieaSed hlm, and he should, under no contin-
Sency' Tor them. He had voted for the reso-
hhs Iu'Iohs OF 1858 and 1859, and the action had
Gee oeen twice indorsed bv the people of the