Year: 1879

we are surprised at this altnougn we
know, that the instrument was framed
with eye single to It's adoption. Through
out the proceedings of the Convention,
the one thing uppermost in the minds OF
some of the delegates appeared to be, to
leave out good provisions if their presence
in the instrument would endanger its sue
cess-to insert anything which, however
unjust, promised to bring the instrument
support. The Grsngers were caught by
the clause exempting from taxation grow
ing crops the Southern part Of the State
by the apparent legislation aimed at the
Southern Pacific. Another large class
were gathered into the fold by the pro-
vision for the taxation of credits and
mortgages, while all who ignorantly be-
lieved that the section of balderdash
about the Chinese would be of any effect,
rallied to its support on that ground,
each class bent only upon the accomplish
ment of its one object, and TO great ex
tent oblivious TO the evils threatened else
where.


Yet although so craftily made to win.
we are surprised that it did win, and win
by majority so large that we cannot at
this time see how it could been overcome.
The Convention was sharp enough to re-
main In session so long, that but little
time was afforded 10 discuss the effects Of


its work, which was an important factor
in the sum of its success. The more it
was studied and debated, the more OBJ
jectionable it appeared. And even then,
in the limited period allowed for discus
sion, so dangerous and threatening were
its provisions, that the best intelligence
of the State was speedily arrayed in op
position to its adoption. In it favor were
but few men Of marked ability; few
known to fame except as played out party
hacks, ambitious to secure ony change
which promised 10 give them another
feed at the public crib. The master legal
minds of the State the lawyers of es-
tablished reputation and clientage, saw
that the business interests of their clients
would be imperiled, and although its
adoption would be sure to increase .itiga-
tiOn, yet actuated by that regard for tho
welfare Of society which distinguishes
the lawyer from the mere pettifogger, VIC
find the best legal talent Of the State were
opposed to adoption. The power Of the
press was used unsparingly in showing
the defects of the instrument, the injury
to the public welfare which must result
from literal Interpretation of its thous~
and and one rad ical changes, yet the
constitution was adopted. Communities
and nations as we'll as individuals are lia-
BILE to insanity, and to act in defiance of the
teachings of reason.


1t is a pity that the good portion ofthe
new constitution could not have been
adopted, and without being taken togeth-
er with The parts which are sure to work
evil. There are some portions of it that
every citizen who loves the principles of
good government could have accepted.
There are others, which could not be de-
Tended even by the men who placed them
there. And it is worse, that by adopting
the Constitution we have practically en-
dorsed other things which no good citizen,
we care not whether he be friend or an
enemy of the document ITSELF cares to
sanction. We have endorsed provisions
which every sane man knows to be in
conflict with the Constitution of the
United States, viii any but hoodlum
court will declare null and void the mo-
dicial Interpretation. This is not all. We
have given our approval OF the conduct Of
those ruffians who on half dozen occa-
sions violated the right of free speech
who insulted the Governor of the State in
San Francisco, who pelted General Walsh
with rotten eggs in Sacramento. But how
long will that endorsement last. Not
many years we imagine, in free country
like California. 1t is not the first time in
the history Of our State when men were
driven from the speakers stand with rot
ten eggs. 1t happened once in our own
town, but avengng time brought its in
evitable result, and as "the blood of the
martyrs is the seed OF the church" )" so the
principles thus sought to be crushed out
grew and hourished and ruled in the ma
tion. The party which essayed to crush
freedom of speech was crushed and hum
bed id its turn and so will il be again.


We made our fight honestly against the
new constitution, for we believed its
adoption would be detrimental to the best
interests of the State. The fact that it
was adopted does not alter that belief
MajorIties are som etimes in the wrong as
well as sometimes in the -ight. Both our
Federal and State Constitutions contain,
in the provision for an upper house, chos
Ell for longer term of service, check
upon impulsive and i'll considered legisla-
ton. Our new constitution endeavored to
remove that check upon the first Legisla>


ture chosen after its adoption, whether


successfully or not remains to be seen.


But in any event the new constitution
must be submitted to the crucial test of
experience, and while we look forward to
its workings with doubt, we hope for the
welfare of the State that it may prove to
be all that its most enthusiastic advocates
claimed.


EA<z<z--.-<&r.nz1z<=kH@@rs


" a Al
les of the new constitution which were
$50 thoughtfully sent TO every voter by
order of the late constitutional conven-
tion." Exactly. The convention also
bo, IL Il -,