Weekly Trinity journal., 1872-02-24
NUMBER s.

Mr. ALDRIcH expressed warm sympa-
thy for the man who lost this money, but
urged that there was principle involved,
and the question whether the principle
was right or wrong was one which would
be discussed long after the Legislature
was dispersed. In any event it was very
unwise in this man to do as he did /; and
if he did foolish thing he ought to be
made to stand by it. As to its being
test case, he did not think it was. If they
were going to entertain the matter at all
the bill should be recommitted to find out
something more definite as to the proper
amount. That had never been investi-
gated. Sympathy for the man did credit
to the heart but sympathy without ma
king proper inquiry would be no credit
to the head.
Mr.. DE HAVEN in reply to Mr.. Ellis,
said he also did not understand that
Jackson's case was test case.
Mr.. BARKER said he was not prepared
to vote on the bill at present and moved
to refer the whole matter back to the
committee to obtain more definite infor-
nation.
Mr.. DE HAVEN said they had all the
facts they could present. OF the amount,
they had only the evidence of the attorney.
He had said enough to indicate to the
House the adverse opinion of the COM
mittee.
Mr.. ALDRICH said the committee were
against it, and they had reported the bill
back without recommendation solely out
of sympathy, and out of Difference to
Jackson's friends, who were very strenu-
Gus in his behalf. When the State makes
test cases it employs its attorneys and pays
its bills.
Mr.. French could not understand why
the House should be urged to donate this
$4,000 when they did not know what it
was for. The object of this pressure was
to advance the claim one step further.
Mr.. BuRCKHALTER said many appro-
priatons had been made ON no better
information. Jackson could not have
been expected to understand an obscure
provision in the United States Conststi-
tuition. A female in San joaquin county
claimed the right TO vote recently, com
menced prosecution against an officer
of the State, and while it was uncertain
but she had that right, it would be equal
ly unreasonable to expect that officer to
know beforehand what that decision
would be.
Mr.. HARVEY said he did not wish to
defeat the bill but if there was merit in
it why should his friends not permit
either Of the attorneys fees hero involved
to be inquired into ?
Mr.. SPENCER moved call to the
House, which was lost.
Mr.. TURNER moved to adjourn, which
was also lost.
Mr.. De HAVEN said if the House was
determined to proceed further with this
matter in Difference to the committee, it
should be re-referred to enable them to
report for or against the bill, as they
ought to have done in the first place.
Mr.. BARKER moved to amend the bill
by striking out $1,000 and to insert 81, 900,
which was lost.
Mr.. BERRY believed $1,000 would have
been sufficient to cover the whole case,
and urged that party questions should
have nothing to do with the action Of tho
House in the matter.
Mr.. BURCKHALTER asked how the
gentleman knew that $4,000 would cover
the case.
Mr.. BERRY replied from general
knowledge concerning the costs in such
cases. lie hoped that the bill would bo
recommitted, with special instructions to
insert $4,000.
Mr.. BURCKIIALTER moved to amend
that the committee be instructed TO report
the actual amouht that would cover jack
sons expenses.
The SPEAKER, in stating the question,
used the word "damages" instead of
"expenscs," and was corrected therein
by Mr.. JOHNSTON.
Mr.. BURcKHALTER said by expenses
he meant damages.
The CLERK wrote the words, " to ascer-
tain the actual expenses" and read the
amendment as written by him.
The amendment was adopted-ayes, %;
noes, %.
AT 5:25, on motion of Mr.. MATHERs,
the House adjourned.