Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1880-03-18

BY Mr.. NcDADE-An Act in relation to contracts
made b. the State, county, city or town authorities
respecting the execution Of work the furnishing
of material or supplies.
| By Mr.. WAssoS-Substitute for the various Nor
NAL School bills fThe substitute bill provides for
the erection of one Normal School at San Jose, for
slUO,000; one at Los Angeles s50,o COO; one ct Ne
vada City, $4,000; one at Reading, S25, 600, and
S9'oUo ior lifting up the building at Santa Rosa
Total cost, s2o5 0Oo.l
| By Mr.. CoRcoRAE-An Act to add a new section
to the Civil Code in relation TO corporations
Mr. FELTON, made report from the Swamp Land
Committee, recommending that Assembly Bill No.
l2S do not pass.
FIRST READING OF BILLS.
number of bills were read a first time and re-
| ferred TO appropriate committees.
! Mr. BRAUSHART moved to take up the bill out OF
| its order in relation to stock gambling. Lost
SECOND READING FILE.
Assembly Bill No. 356-An Act giving a lien to
persons performing labor in connection with a
threshing machine, upon the grain threshed by such
machine (by Mr.. Messenger
Mr. SPENCER offered amendment to Section l.
providing that the amount Of ens shall not exceed
the agreed cost OF threshing. Adopted.
Ar. SPENCER also offered new section, providing
that he liens shall not apply unless notice OF this
Act is posted on the threshing machine, and making
it a misdemeanor to refuse to publish such notice
OF the Act. Mr. Spencer sald the object was that
farmers employing machines by contract may be
notified OF the law, and SO that the laborers may
know their ghts.
Mir MAYBELL SAID if the proprietor failed to post
such notice the laborer would be debarred from col
Letting his claim.
Mr. TYLER said there was no reason for it; be
wanted the notice posted on the grain. He moved
| an amendment to that effect.
Mr. CARR Of Sacramento wanted the lien upon the
property He himself owned machine, and be
claimed that this was wrong. The men work for the
machine and should have lien on the machine
| Mr. DUt3RUTZ said the farmer has the benefit Of
the work and ought to be responsible. He favored
! the bill. Now, i'll the name of common sense and
| justice, should like to know what there is wrong
about this bii, which has been drawn IN strict COM
plaDce with the Codes and al intents and pur
| poses in strict accordance with the Constitution,
which, if it means anything, is plain as English
language can make it, and is mandatory upon this
| Legislature. One would think, If he would trace
the history OF this bill throughi its various wn1ngs
that there is something wrong about common la
borer having anything like equal show to collect
the miserable pittance for which he hires
| himself body and soul, as it were, to hard
labor for from twelve to sixteen hours a day.
At early day introduced similar bill to this,
which duty referred to the honorable judiciary
Committee, who, acting, as they do, rather Su-
preme Court instead of a simple committee ap-
pointed to assist in making laws, reported that some
was not crossed some was not dotted, and feel
| ingly recommended that the author be allowed to
withdraw the same. Knowing the necessity of such
law, was not discouraged, and having obtained
| assistance, thought had at least after thorough
search Of the Codes. produced bill OF sufficient
responsibility and size to attract the attention OF
some committee of less magnitude than the Judici-
ciary and fearing to trust it again in the hands Of
its enemies requested the Speaker TO refer it TO the
| Committee IN Agriculture. But here | made fear
ful mistake for it fell into worse hands than the
| first bill, as a aiority OF the committee run
thrashng machines, and they plainly showed by
| their actions that they neither knew nor cared
| whether the aborer received pay for his labor or
| not, and consequently did not want any trouble
4
| nv bill and recommended that it be rejected Now
there always has been lien law for mechanics and
skilled workmen, but this seems to be a new de-
parture, and both committees raise their
| hands in holy horror at the idea of a
| common laborer having law to compel
a dishonest employer to pay his honest debts
| 1t has been the custom # farmers to hire their
thrashing done by the bushel or pound. These ma
chimes are owned or hired by men who hire their
own hands, agreeing to pay them when the
work is done but this they often forget to do and
| the put off from time to time, and at last,
when it Is too late, find themselves out of employ
ment and of money also. l can find fifty instances
IN less than week where the laborers lost their
! sons work under such circumstances, and number
OF machineowners lost their pay because the entire
crop had been mortgaged and was hauled from the
machine as soon as it wa. thrashed. The bill have
here presented will work no hardship to honest men,
but merely makes it the duty of the owner of the
| grain to see that the paid, and IN no in
stance eau he be made to pay twice ii he attends to
| show receipts or get an acknowledgment from the
men releasing him from their claim, and this any
honest man can or is willing 10 do.
| Mr. McINTOsH said the owner of the machine pays
| his own hands and all his expenses. The crop is
often mortgaged that the machine owner cannot
| get his money to pay the hands with. The law
should protect both parties.
Mr. Fox said the bill ought to be rejected or re-
ferred for revision lie said this purported to be
| bill to secure lien upon the first commodity Of
commerce. which is subject to instant transfer to
innocent holder 1t would defeat the object of the
bill. He claimed that the bill full Of inconsist
encies and would defea. itself.
Mr.. CHANDLER said it would be great injustice
to poor men. Every man who is able to own ma
chice and pay help every week will get all the
work. for it will be dangerous Tor farmers to run
any risk Of having their grain attached by the un
| paid men.
| Mr. TYLER offered an amendment as a substitute
making it tine duty Of the farmer to pay all wages
| due to the men, and deduct the amount from the
amount due the owner or lessee Of the machine
Mr.. CoRcoRAN said al the bills 60 upor the hy-
pothesis that the machine makes money, which they
| do not. The money metimes fall short of paying
tie actual expenses, and the farmer would have to
make good the loss 1t is absurd, and the law now
| is sufficient.
Mr.. MAYBELL favored the bill. he did not believe
| il was inc0ngruous inco sIstent. The bill com
pares perfectly with the mandatory requirements of
:he Constitution The laboring men should have
lien upon everything upon which they have ex-
| pended work.
| MT. LANE tloFGu ~ puSsppu6 liiS OlsCuSslOD.
Mr.. MORSE said the bill and sub, titute are both
deficient, because they destroy the statute of
| emptions. This bill assumes that farmers all
well off which is not the case. He may not be able
to thrash $500 worth Of grain. the amount exempted
| by law and these bills would destroy that statute.
| Mr.. BRUYBR said the majority of farmers have
small crops. II there attachments from each one
of the laborers, the costs would eat up the entire
crop, which would be very unjust.
Mr.. HARDY opposed the amendment. 1t makes
| the owner Of the land where the grain is threshed
responsible. 1t often happens that the grain of
farm is carted to another mans field for threshing
| The workmen should be allowed to keep possession
OF the grain until the wages are paid. They cannot
| follow the grain to San Francisco on the ears.
Mr. McCoMAs opposed the bill and the amend
ment.
Mr. TYLER said the amendment is just what is
needed It cOmpes the farmer to see that the
laborers are paid He said it was mistake that any
one would haul his grain of to another mans land
| to get rid of paying the men.
Mr. CHANDLER said it preposterous. There
| is not one farmer out of ten who can raise the
money at the time, until he sells his grain.
Mr.. BENNETT said wheu the bill was before the
committee they considered it carefully, and they
| could not recommend its passage. The author came
before the committee, but they could not support
the bill They thought it unnecessary bring this
matter up TO consume the time Of the House The
House ought to have confidence in the report Of the
committee
The amendments we're lost.
Mr. SISoS moved an amendment, giviug a lien
upon the realty upon which the grain is threshed.
Lost.