which may be negotiated
between them, and to the use by the executive of the moneys
herein appropriated, neither slavery nor involuntary servitude
shall ever exist in any part of said territory, except for crime
whereof the party shall first be duly convicted."[21]

This proviso was adopted by a vote of 83 to 64. The bill carrying this
proviso was then reported to the Senate where followed a heated debate
which lasted until adjournment, the proviso being killed in the midst
of stormy scenes in Congress.[22] This discussion showed that few
statesmen believed that slavery would be profitable in California.
They were not unlike Daniel Webster who, while speaking on the
admission of the State of Texas, said that slavery was effectually
excluded from California and New Mexico by a law even superior to that
which admits and sanctions it in Texas. He meant the law of nature.
The physiographic conditions of the country would forever exclude
African slavery there; and it needed not the application of a proviso.
If the question was then before the Senate he would not vote "to add a
prohibition--to reaffirm an ordinance of nature, nor reenact the will
of God."[23]

The coming and going of the Negro in California did not especially
interest any one until the beginning of the immigration of the
forties. The subject of slavery in California was officially called to
the attention of the inhabitants through the issuance of a
proclamation by the Commander in Chief of the District in regard to
the unlawful enslaving of the Indians. He was endeavoring to protect
them, but they were enslaved[24] in spite of his efforts. The
legislature undertook to perpetuate this system by enacting a law
permitting the enslavement of Indians, the only condition upon the
master being a bond of a small sum, that he would not abuse or cruelly
treat the slaves. Under the provision of the same law, Indians could
be arrested as vagrants and sold to the highest bidder within
twenty-four hours after the arrest, and the buyer had the privilege of
the labor for a period not exceeding four months.[25] An Indian
arrested for a violation of a law could demand a jury trial, but could
not testify in his own behalf against a white person. If found guilty
of any crime, he could either be imprisoned or whipped, the whipping
not to exceed twenty-four lashes.[26]

Later there was a steady influx of southerners and their Negro slaves
into the territory