these houses casting their money on the chances of the game." Lotteries could not be prevented, and it would be better to legalize them than to have them operating secretly. Three thousand dollars a year could be raised by granting lottery privileges, and this would be quite an asset under the embarrassing position in which the state would be placed when the new government went into operation. To organize a perfect system of taxation at first would be very difficult indeed.1 Shannon thought the subject should be left entirely in the hands of the Legislature; therefore he would oppose it.2 And Moore said "he had received no instructions from his constituents directing him to prescribe the particular amusements at which they should pass their time; when they should go to bed or when they should get up." He came here to lay down the broad and general principles of religious freedom.3 Dimmick could not see how permitting lotteries had anything to do with establishing "broad and general principles of religious freedom," unless gambling was to be considered religious freedom. It certainly took the largest possible liberties known in any community where religion existed. Such an argument was a new theory of morals which he hoped would be omitted in the constitution of California. He thought it might be expedient to license gambling in certain parts of the country, but not lotteries. He sincerely hoped that the new state would not adopt an immoral sys 1 Browne, Debates, 90 and 91. 2 Ibid., 91. 3 Ibid., 92; Hittell, II, 764. ter rev the WO De of eff SIO tal be fig pr wa lef CO it th in ev axation as a source of revenue. The question of e considered of trifling importance, compared with and lasting injury which institutions of that kind Hict upon the community.1 Hoppe, Halleck and urged the Convention not to adopt, for the sake e, a measure which would encourage vice and y throughout the state. These arguments were nd the section prohibiting lotteries was adopted." Dueling ond section of the article on miscellaneous provived of suffrage and of holding office all who should n dueling. Dent said the section should be omitted ▪ constitutional enactment could prevent men from els, and the proposal before the House might detate of the services of some good men. Shannon omit it because it was a subject which should be Legislature. Steuart thought public opinion only ent dueling, and Hastings objected to it because onstitutional. If the section were included, said a citizen of California might be tried and punished state for fighting a duel there, but if he should n to California he would be condemned again Debates, 92. nd 92. without trial by the state constitution. This would violate the clause in the United States Constitution which provided that no person, after acquittal, should be tried for the same offence again.1 In opposition to these views, Sherwood declared the section should be included because it would establish a high standard of citizenship, and would take away a certain license for street broils and other evils which those states experienced that permitted dueling. Gwin said that the practice had not been introduced into California, and its evil effects in those states where it existed induced him to make its introduction impossible if he could.3 Moore sarcastically remarked that it would have one advantage-it would at least afford men a pretext for not engaging in duels. Semple said that the provision, so far as he individually was concerned, was unconstitutional because his constitution forbade it. However, he was in favor of retaining the proposal if the punishment were decreased. The punishment to be inflicted according to the section as it stood, he considered more severe than the death penalty." The section was adopted practically as reported by the Committee." 1 Browne, Debates, 251-2. 2 Ibid., 246-7. 3 Ibid., 248. 4 Ibid., 250. 5 Ibid., 253. Ibid., 255. Separate Property for Married Women 1 1 degree of interest was manifested in the question property for married women, and "many amusents were advanced which throw a sidelight on status of the country." The section provided operty, both real and personal, of the wife, owned by her before marriage, and that acquired afterift or otherwise, should remain her personal propthat laws should be passed more clearly defining of the wife "in relation as well to her separate s that held in common with her husband.” 2 d Botts opposed this measure because they consubject which should be left to the Legislature.3 e of marriage, argued the former, the husband is to come into possession of the wife's property, o the common law, and is thus made responsible >ts. Let us not experiment in this constitution, the subject for the Legislature. If the section cluded, let us insert another freeing the husband sponsibility in so far as his wife's debts are con ther hand Norton denied the "relevancy of both nd civil law," and Dimmick pointed out that esis of California's First Constitution, 44. Debates, 257. and 259. Hunt, Genesis of California's First Constitution, 44. 66. Hunt Cox of California's First Constitution the proposal simply embodied in the constitution a provision which was already recognized in the country.1 Tefft thought that such a provision would be a safeguard, for the period of speculation upon which California was entering would make some such clause necessary to prevent the husband from squandering the wife's property.2 Halleck was not "wedded either to the common law or the civil law nor, as yet, to a woman," but he advised all bachelors to vote for the section because it would be the means of inducing women of wealth to come to California. Whether this was the most effective argument to be offered or not, the section was finally adopted as proposed, and it is believed by one authority to be the first instance on record when "a section recognizing the wife's separate property was embodied in the fundamental law of any state." 5 Similar sections were those prohibiting the Legislature from granting divorces and requiring it to enact a homestead law." State Debt, Suffrage, and Apportionment of Representation The question of permitting the Legislature to create a state debt of more than $100,000 as proposed by the Committee on the Constitution, was changed without much op 45. 45. 1 Browne, Debates, 262-63; Hunt, Genesis of California's First Constitution, 2 Browne, Debates, 258; Hunt, Genesis of California's First Constitution, 3 Browne, Debates, 259. 4 Ibid., 269. 5 Hunt, Genesis of California's First Constitution, 45. pos ven case case or case pro prin was of t mal urg on ado Τ citi Me Sta four six the viso by of 1 por Th 1 |