The Placer herald., 1862-08-02

boys, we nave plenty OF room IN our column:
for-advertisements
The Amendments to our State Constitu'
tion.-.An 1ncomprehensible Muddle.
The Constitution of this State SAYS, "eacl
house shall keep journal of its own pro
ceedings, and shall publish the same;' i,
also says. that when the Legislature propo
ses amendments 10 that instrument, "such
proposed amendment or amendments shall
be entered on their journals. with the yeas
and nays taken thereon" We have taken
the pains to examine the printed journals OF
both houses, for the session Of 1861, and the
amendments are not entered on the journal
Of either house as required. In the printed
volume of the Statutes for the year 1861,
where there is no law for inserting them.
there appears what purports to be the amend
ments as passed during that session. In the
printed volume of the Statutes of 1862,
there appears, under the certificate of the
President and Secretary Of the Senate. and
of the Speaker and Clerk of the House,
what purports to be the amendments adopt
ed and agreed to By the Legislature OF the
thirteenth session. and they say were here
tofore proposed and adopted" by the Legis
lature Of 1861" By comparison of the
amendments, as thus pubIishe in ls6l, and
in 1862, i, will be found that thew differ
vide y--that the two legislatures did not
agree to the same thing, as the Constitution
requires.
In 1861, Gov. John G. Downey orders
publication in the Sacramento Union, the
amendments proposed 10y the Legislature of
1861. and he, and Johnson Price, rs Secrei
tarv of State, cerifies as TO what they are.
In 1862, Gov. Leland Stanford orders pub
lcaion in the Union, of the amendments
which lad been proposed and adopted by
the Legislature of 1861 and Which were in
like manner adopted and agreed TO bv the
Legislature Of 1862, and he, and w. II.
Weeks, as Secretary of State, certify as TO
what they are. The amendments thus pub
lished under official sanction, are not At all
alike. The two Governors understand and
publish them different the two Secretaries Of
State, are AS widely differing in their under
standing Of the records. These differences
are not of small and unmportant matters,
but relate to matters of grave consideration.
For example: Gov. Downey and his Secretary
Of State says the Legislature shall meet on
the first Monday in January, that the session
shall ordinarily be ninety days; but Governor
Stanford saws, the session shall commence
the first Monday in December, and the ordi,
nary session shall be one hundred and twenty
days.
According to Governor Downey, these
amendments abrogate and annll Sections 80
and Sc of Article ", (relating to individual
responsibility of corporaors), but according
TO Governor Stanford they do not. In re-
gard to the Article relating to the Judicial
Department. they differ quite as widely
The case then, stands in this wise: There is
no record Of the amendments, where the
Constitution requires there should be--there
has been no publication in 1861, as the Con
sti,uton requires, if the Legislature, Statute
book. officers of the two Houses, and Gov.
Stanford and the Secretary of State are to
be believed. The Legislature Of 1862, Gid
not adopt and agree to what the Legislature
Of 1861, proposed and agreed to as amend
ments, as the Constitution requires they
should. The unauthorized record on the
Statute books, are widely dffeI eEt; the two
Legislatures did not vote for tho same
amendments and disagree as to what the
amendments are; the two Governors under.
stand and proclaim different, the two Secre
taries OF State understand the record differ,
emily, and so certify to the world; and if
these sources of information fail to settle
the point, who in the name of common
sense, can settle upon what these amend
ments are. Is it expected that the ordinary
voter, who was no: at the passing Of them
and has never had access to the records can
decide correctly, what those. who have hat
such opportunities, are unable to doa W.
have given this subject the laborlous inves
tigation, and the close scrutiny, which it
importance demands, with the hope that w
might excite enough interest in the minds
Of others to induce investigation. Thus far
however, we fear we have failed Of our Oh
ject. Newspaperdom seems to he asleep or
this subject. It is true, we did notice that
the s. r. Herald asked some pontless ques
tion about the amendments. which was re
sponded to by the Sacramento Union in sucl
way as to show that it either knew moth
ing abont the matter, or was willing to le
the question slide quietly by; and then these
two sagacious owls closed their eyes in dig
uiied complacency.
If the people do not wish to give An op
portunity for the preparation upon them o
an outrageous swindle. in their constitution
al rights, they must arouse themselves, ant
take some notice Of what is passing in thi
matter. We have done our duty at least.
s. R. BRADLEY VS. JOHN GILBRAIrH EFT AL
This case was tried in the District Cour