Weekly Trinity journal. [volume] (Weaverville, Calif.) 1857-1972, 1864-02-13
Our Sacramento Letter.

sertations on the currently question Fearing
they may, 1 will be brief in my allusiuns to the
matter this week, although it is still Che allah
sorbing question before the Legislature Final
vote on the bill to repeal the Specific Contract
Act has been deferred in the Senate till Tuesday,
February 9th. Its passage is exceedingly doubt
full. Its postponernent was point gained BY the
opposition. 1t gives tonic for the use Of in
fuences One of these little " Influences
am glad to say, crushed in the Assembly on
Wednesday. There was bill under considera-
ton authorizing the payment of officers Salaries
and fees in the legal currency of the United
States. 1t was introduced by Hittell, not for the
purpose of having it pass, but to hold as terror
over the heads of Senators favorable to the re-
peal of the Specific Contract Act. An attempt
was made to postpone action on it so as to keep
the tmid in fear that the repeal of that nullif-
cation law would be followedby other acts which
would not be endorsed by the people. The at
tempt failed the bill was indefinitely postponed.
There is not majority in either House favorable
to the receipt Of greenbacks for taxes, and
begin to fear that numbers are becoming shaky
even on the repeal bill. Had Smiths bill to re-
peal the Specific Contract Act come into the As
sembly two weeks ago it would have passed by
large majority. Its passage is growing more
doubtful day by day. There are combinations
under-currents, and secret influences at work
among members which change votes on some i'm
portant bills. The questions asked by those who
change are not always, twill change of my
vote be productive of good to the people? Will
it tend to establish justice? Will it promote
harmony among loyal mem" But they some
times ask themselves these questions 4" Will q
change in my vote crafty certain men who are
likely in future to hold positions of power and
favors have already received? Will it not, in
short, tend to my personal advantage in the
future ~ 1t is humiliating to know that ques-
tions of'public policy-questions, the decision
of which must affect the interests, perhaps the
honor of the whole people-are decided by con-
siderations so unworthy. Yet so it is, and here is
CASE IN POINT.
One week ago there a majority of the As
sembly in favor of the amendments offered by
the committee Elections to Wiey's bill to di-
vide the State into Congressional Districts. The
report of the committee in favor of the amend
ments was unanimous, yet on their adoption
three of the committee voted against them.
Many other members changed front in the same
way. When the question came before the House,
after few days delay, no good reasons were
for dina &c hut
reasons in favor of them. The arguments were
all on side, the change of votes all in favor
of the other side. 1t shown that the shape
of the I'd District as laid down in the original
bill is triangular-2Oo miles long on the eastern
border of the State, and running to point on
the sea-coast ; while the district, as proposed by
the amendments extends across the State at a
nearly uniform width of seventy-fve miles. 1t
was proved that the population of the State is
more equally divided by the amended than by
the original bill, and that the Union majorties
of the amended districts at the last election were
almost equal while the majorities of the districts
proposed by the original very unequal.
Taking the vote for Gov. Low as the basis, we
find that the counties composing the various dis
tricts, laid down in Wilcys BILL gave Union
which sum up as follows First, A.
S05; Second, $500; Third, 1885. The Districts
as proposed by the amendments gave Union
jorities as follows First, 5, ll9; Second, SAT-
Third, 5,l74. This shows difference of 2,l35
votes in the Union majorities of the I'd and Sd
Districts of the original BILL while the difference
in the maorites of the districts as proposed in
the amendments is less than three hundred. In
the original bill the I'd District contains popu-
lation of l4l ,577, which is more than 10000
greater than the population of the Sd District.
The amended bill made the districts almost uni
form in population. There was great deal of
talk about the various interests of the State
mining, commercial and agricultural, and the
miners asked for the original bill in order to
have majority of mining counties in the I'd
District 1t was conceded that they ought to
have one District, but they will undoubtedly
control the Northern District the commercial
and cow-county men claimed a right to control
the Central and Southern. The miners won the
day. Not all of the mining was done above
ground though 1t had been stated in the JOUR-
were selected from certain counties, and that
(most singular coincidence these identical coun-
ties were combined in Wileys bill in the I'd Con-
gressional District. Putting this and that to-
gether, some members thought it reflection on
the Speaker, and when appealed to, to sustain
the original bill the ground that its amend
ment would be rebuke to the Speaker they
consented to do so, without rejecting that their
vote in favor of the original bill would not alter
the fdcts one iota, and consequently could not be
an endorsement of the Speakers manner of Sc
lecting the committees. Facts are facts, and no
amount of bluster (Mr. Wiley will ever make
them anything else. But suppose for a moment
that the vote is an endorsement of the Speaker
are the interests of the whole State to be ignored
for the sake of justifying the suspicious conduct
of one man? This may be very pretty pastime
in country debating school, but it is not quite
the thing in legislative body. Men should
come here not to crafty private and personal
pride or ambition, but to enact laws for the good