Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1880-02-04

he did not believe it. He hoped that it would no
be acted on party measure, and he only desiret
| to have light upon it. He did not believe that il
was TO go upon the record that the Senate of Cali
iornla denied to Mr. Pinder the right to show the
facts and the truth connected with the contest. AL
he asked was that the ballots be brought here and
counted and let those silent witnesses give theil
evidence in the case, and if they showed Mr. Tray.
| ior to be elected he satisfied, but if they
showed that MI. Plnder had been elected he ought
to have his seat AS to the suiicency of the state
ment he cited the case of Whitney VS.. McCann, l.
| Cal, 35S.
Pending Mr.. ENos remarks the hour for recess
| arrived.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
The Senate reassembled at $50 P. NJ, President
| Mansfield IN the chair
| ROl called and quorum present.
MIR. ENos resumed his remarks in favor of a re-
| count. He cited the case of Ward VS.. Montgomery
IN the Senate four years ago. and read the report in
that case, also many other precedents, going to
show that 1T proper TO go into a thorough in
vestigation of the case.
Mr. SEARS followed in forcible argument on the
side OF the majority of the committee In the argu-
ments OF the Senators on the other SIDE he thought
there had been more s0pbistry than anything else.
He did not take his position, did he believe the
other Republican members did, from partisan
standpoint. The committee had examined into the
case thoroughly enough to convince them that
there was no ground for the contest They had had
before them the testimony taken in San Francisco
testimony he believed Mr.. Traylor to be entitled to
his seat He thought Mr.. Satterwhite very fair and
impartial on all matters except where his party was
concerned, and that in this case he trying to
tickle the Workngmen under the ear with Demo
cratic quill.
Mr.. RYAN said the testimony taken before the
Justices had never been read before the committee
though be had requested to have it read.
Mr.. NEUaANN said that the reason was that most
of the members had stated that they had already
read it.
Mr.. RYAN held that the testimony should have
been read and the ballots brought here and counted
Mr.. BAKER spoke in favor OF the majority report
and held that the statement of the contestant was
insufficient. As to King Caucus, he said that while
he might deplore the effects of caucus it was not
so bad as the 7th section Of the Workingmen's con
stitution, which he read pledging officers elected
by that party to resign demand of their constit
uents.
Mr.. ENos defended that section of the Working
mems constitution as the only true policy
MIR. DICKINSON made very strong argument in
favor Of the adoption of the report of the majority
He pointed out the manner in which the votes must
be recounted in contest, and the great length Of
| time it must take each ballot must be submitted
as separate witness and was subject to all the
rules and objections OF documentary evidence He
one of the attorneys in the contested case OF
Freud Stewart for the office of County Clerk of
San Francisco, where the same ballots were counted
would have to be counted in this case so far as
they went. He believed from what he saw there
| that recount would not alter the result in this
case. He argued at some length the legal aspect
of the case.
Mr. KANE strongly urged full investigation and
q recount of the votes. He complained that almost
all of the polling places had been at whisky shops
and that many Of the officers Of election were DIR unk
when the vote was being counted.
MIR. ZUCK said that as member of the Committee
on Elections, he had only signed the majority re-
port after thorough investigation Of the case. He
had read the testimony and from all the facts con-
cluded that there was no ground of contest.
Mr.. JOHNS N favored the adoption of the report of
| the majority because of the insufieiency of the
| statement of the contestant. The contestant had
not complied with the law governing the case and
the Senate ought not to go to the great expense of
investigating this case the mere statement of
man that from information, he believed there had
been mscount. He defended tie caucus system
| and believed the State would be better off if the
Republican members would caucus more meas
ures and vote more together in the Senate
Mr.. SATTERwHITE replied to Mr.. Sears, and in the
of his remarks said that the latter need be in
no doubt about his position. If he had to choose
between Grantism and Kearneyism he would take
Kearneyism, and if he had to choose between the
Republican party and the Workingmen's party he
would be with the latter. He offered the following
substitute for the resolution
Resolved, That it S the judgment of this Senate
that the statement of grounds of contest and the
notice of contest in the case of Pinder vs. Trayor
sufficient under the statute and that the Senate
should examine the testimony alre ldy taken in the
case, and that the ballots of the Ninth Senatorial
District should be counted if they have been se-
curely kept and have not been changed.
The Chair ruled the substitute out of order.
THE VOTE.
The question being on the adoption of the resolu.
ton offered by the minority it ost by the fol-
loving vote
Ayes-Anderson, Chase, Conger, Enos, Glascock
Gorman Harlan, Kane, Kelly, Langford, Nelson
Pool, Ryan, Satterwhite, West-15
Noes-Baker, Burt Brown, Carlock, Cheney,
Dickinson, George, Hill, Hittell, Hudson, johnson,
ell, Sears, Watson, Wendell Zuck-2l
Mr.. Davis was paired with Mr.. Moreland
The report of the majority of the Committee on
Elections was adopted by vote of "a ayes TO Il
noes, Messrs. Anderson Chase and West voting
"aye" and making the change from the other vote
In casting his vote Mr.. ANDERSON stated that he
voted "aye" because the S nate had decided to
settle the question on the evidence now before the
Senate.
At P. M, on motion of Mr.. DICKINSON, the Senate
adjourned.