Los Angeles daily herald., 1876-03-25

| that were offered in the Senate by the
friends of the Archer bill were then
presented by those members belong
ing to the most radical anti-railroad
side of the House. The purpose is ev-
identity to impair the usefulness of the
| bill, and to impugn the good faith
manifested by the Senate in its adop-
| tion as substitute for the obnoxious
Archer measure, and in its subsequent
passage.
Archer offered an amendment pro-
viding that no railroad in the State
shall charge more than ninety per
cent. of the tariff in force on the first
day of January, 1876. The effect of
this amendment would be to take off
ten per cent. of the income of every
railroad in the State. The discussion
on the amendment consumed several
hours. Archer, Clarken, Berry, Nc
Kenna, Cluny, and Koutz favored the
amendment and supported their pro-
posititions with forcble arguments;
Mcconnell, Murphy of Del Norte and
Abbott of Monterey had decided adj
vantage in opposing the amendment,
in as far as the merits of the question
were concerned. The amendment if
incorpated in the bill would work quite
as much injury to street railroad lines
as the arbitrary provisions of the late
Archer bill.
The previous question was called
upon the passage of the bill, upon
which the ayes and noes were de-
manded, and the result was 33 ayes to
AZ noes, so the motion was lost.
The question was then called upon
the amendment, resulting in vote of
3S ayes to 3S noes. A majority not
voting in the affirmative the amend
ment was lost.
Mr.. Blue offered an amendment.
settling the rate at SO per cent. This
was of like nature with the Archer
amendment and had the same inten-
tion in view. The ayes and noes were
then called with the following result:
25 ayes and As noes, and the amend
ment was lost.
McKenna, following the example of
Judge Archer, offered an amendment
settling the rate at 95 per cent. Adop-
ted by a vote of ~ ayes to 35 noes.
Several members who strongly op-
posed the amendment in their speech
es voted directly contrary to what
they said to be their convictions in
the matter. Several other alterations
of technical character, not affecting
the general provisions of the bill, were
afterwards made and adopted. The
question then was on the passage of
the bill. The ayes and noes were
called and the bill was passed by the
following vote: Ayes, rs, noes, none.
Murphy of Del Norte asked leave to
withdraw his Commissioner bill for
the reason that the O'Connor bill en-
bodied all the features contained in
his bill. Leave was granted. The
House then adjourned.
In the Assembly to-day the Com
mittee OH Ways and Means reported
in favor of the Senate bill concerning
the mortgage on growing crops; also
recommending the passage of the AS
sembly bill appropriating one hundred
thousand dollars for the erection of a
building for the Deaf, Dumb and Blind
Asylum at Oakland.
The Senate bill revising the Incor-
poration Act of the city of Los Ange-
les, coming up in the Senate messages
was referred to the Los Angeles dele
cation.
The West Side Irrigation bill was
taken up from the Senate message and
all the amendments of the Senate con-
Cured in excepting the one striking
out the section of the bill which pro-
vides that no Chinese labor shall be
had upon the proposed works. The
bill was then ordered back to the Sem
ate with message relative to the ac
tion of the House.
The Senate bill relative to the 22d
Judicial District, being the special Or
der, was then considered. Upon the
passage of the bill the roll was called
with the following result-ayes AZ,
noes 26. The bill not having received
the requisite constitutional majority
O two-thirds was declared lost.
Farrell of Sonoma gave notice of re-
consideration.
The passage of the O'Connor bill by
the Assembly, with the amendment
placing the maximum rates to be
charged by the Commissioner at five
per cent, ,insures Its defeat in the Sen
ate, for the same amendment was Of
fered in that body while the bill was
under consideration, and rejected by a
large majority, so there is little like
lihoOd of a concurrence. The bill hav-
ing originated in the Senate, return
there for concurrence will result in the
death of the bill, result not desired
by the railroad company nor by the
class of people who have clamOred for
legislation on freights and fares. Not
by the railroad company, for they
have rather facilitated than retarded
the progress of the bill. Certainly
not by the anti-railroad class of the
people, for this bill meets every re-
quirement and paves the way for an
enlightened and more effective legis-
lation. X.
The fashion correspondents in Wash
ingtOn rejoice that the Belknap ex-