In the nearly three decades since statehood, new economic and social issues arose that galvanized into political action groups within California’s dramatically increasing population. One such issue was an inequitable tax system that placed undue burdens on farmers. Another was the seemingly limitless power of the Southern Pacific Railroad and abuses by other corporations, including banks. A third concerned a white backlash to the influx of Chinese immigrants. Many politically active Californians decided that these and other matters could not be addressed effectively by mere legislation. In state elections in September 1877, voters approved the call for a new constitutional convention.
Beginning in September 1878 and ending six months later, a Sacramento constitutional convention was attended by 152 delegates, three times the number assembled in Monterey in 1849. Fifty-seven were lawyers, 39 were farmers, and the rest came from diverse occupations. All were white males. They wrote one of the longest, most detailed charters in the world, much lengthier than its U. S. counterpart. That happened as provisions were included relating to nut trees and wrestling.
In addition to rejecting a proposal for women’s suffrage and eliminating the 1849 requirement that all laws be published in Spanish and English, the delegates addressed the issues primarily responsible for the convention. Regarding tax relief for growers, the results were disappointing. Still, in principle, some headway was made with the establishment of a state board of equalization, whose mission was to oversee tax collection fairly and efficiently. Also, the document contained a provision making mortgage holders liable for taxes
On the equity they held in farm lands. While a rate - and fine-setting railroad commission of three members was established, it came to be seen as a pawn of the Southern Pacific. Real railroad regulation was several decades away. Regarding the Chinese, the constitution authorized the state to protect itself from “aliens, who are, or may become. . . dangerous or detrimental.” Corporations and the state were prohibited from employing Chinese, except “in punishment for crime.” Cities were permitted to restrict Chinese to prescribed districts, as well as to disallow their residence entirely. “Asiatic coolieism” was equated with “human slavery.”
The finished document satisfied few. Conservatives warned that it was communistic; liberal reformers complained that it failed to protect the rights of workingmen. Politics being “the art of the possible,” it probably represented the best blending and balancing of voting factions and their interests attainable at that time. With little enthusiasm, the electorate approved the document on May 7, 1879, by a numerical majority. More than 80 percent of the electorate cast ballots. Northern California’s larger cities, where the Workingmen’s Party had clout, opposed ratification. Southern California’s rural counties, dependent on rail transport for crops, voted for approval. The charter has been amended more than 350 times and has undergone other substantial revisions. It remains the fundamental law of California.
World History
