Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1880-01-20
SENATE.

SEN ATE.
SACRAMENTO, January 10, 1880.
The Senate met at 10 4 ", pursuant TO adjourn
ment, Pres dert Mansfield in the chair.
Roll called and quorum present
Journal Of yesterday approved
Leave of absence for one day was granted to
Senators Hudson and Langford
ASSEMBLY MESSAGE.
The Senate took up the Assembly message. As
sembly Concurrent Resolution No 8, expressing
sympathy with the peope of Ireland, was read.
On motion OF Mr. SATrERwHITE, it was referred to
the Committee on Federal Relations.
INTRODUCTION OF BILLS.
Bills were introduced, read first time at length
and referred as follows
By Mr.. JOHNSON (by reques0-An Act to provide
for the government of the State Library lRepeais
certain sections 81 the Political Code, and provides
for the election OF five Trustees, etc, and defines
| their duties Committee on State Library.
Also (by request) an Act to amend Sections 1lSl
and 1ls2 OF the Penal Code of California. "A bill
| covering the points raised in the Sprague case.
Committee on Judiciary
| By Mr.. KANE-An Act concerning Boards Of
| Health Provides for the election OF Boards of
Health instead of appointment, and makes their pay
| 500 per month"; San Francisco delegation.
| By MIR. McRELAND-An Act providing for the as
sessnent and collection OF taxes. Provides general
system of taxation under the new Constitution, in
| 220 sectionsl Committee on Finance.
THB TEST ACT.
Oll iHOIOn OF MT. DAVIS, Ine senate tOOh up OuJ
| of its order Senate Il No s3-An Act authorizing
the Controller and Treasurer of State to transfer
certain funds
The bill was passed by vote of 80 ayes to noes
Mes3rs johnson and Kane
MORE BILLS.
! BY Mr.. SArTERwHITE-An Act to amend that part
of the Political Code relating schools and to repeal
other Acts relating thereto, Provides new organ
ization OF the school systenl.l Committee on Edu
| cation.
Also, an Act to amend Sections 245 24s and 2i9
of the Political Code relating to Clerks OF the Senate
| and Assembly. [Same present, except that it
leaves out the Enrolling Clerk. Committee on Con.
| tinsent Expenses.
| By Mr.. WENDELL-An Act to amend Section 634
of the Penal Code, relating to violations OF the law
| for the preservation OF fish. Committee on Fisher
| les and Game
| By Mr.. ESos-An Act to repeal an Act entitled an
Act to confer further powers upon the Board of Su
pervisors of the city and county OF San Francisco
approved March 80, 1873. San Francisco delegati H.
Also, an Act to repeal an Act appropriating money
for the conservation of the public peace PROVIDES
| for returning the fund to the General Fund Com
mttee on Finance.
| Also, an Act relating to and defining to whom
licenses shall not be issued. Licenses shall not be
issued to persons not eligible to become citizens of
| the United States Committee Chinese and Chi
| nese Immigration
STATE PRISON WORK.
| A resolution was offered by Mr.. JOHNSON and
adopted directing the Committee State Prisons to
| inquire into the failure Of the contractor at the
Branch State Prison to pay aborers employed in the
| work.
| BY Mr.. JOHNSON An Act granting relief to tax
| payers whose lands have been sold TO the State
| Committee on Finance.
| RESOLUTIONS
| Mr. ENos introduced concurrent resolution re-
uuestng our Senators and Representatives in Con-
! gress to oppose the Franco american treaty. Re-
| ferred to the Committee on Federal Relations
Mr.. BAKER offered concurrent resolution request
ing Senators and Representatives in Congress to
procure the passage of such measures shall allow
the entry Of ute al the port of San Francisco free OF
import duty, to such amount as can be made up
into sacks by prisoners in the State Prison.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
The Senate reassembled at 1:30 P. NJ, President
Mansfield IN the chair.
Roll called and quorum present.
| THE WATER BILL.
The Senate took up Assembly Bill No. Am Act
to repeal Act entitled Act to authorize the city
and county OF San Francisco to provide and main
tain public water-works for said city and county,
and to cond9mn and purchase private property for
that purpose, approved March y, 1s76-on its final
passage.
Mr. TRAYLoR spoke in favor of the passage of the
bill He hoped the Senate would decide in favor of
the wishes of the people OF San Francisco. All the
parties who went into the last campaign promised to
fay the passage of an Act to repeal the Rogers
Act He recited the history o! tn Act at lenEth,
10 the same cUect rs III Jne speeches neTeuoofe pup.
lished. He knew that the water not worth one
tenth of the amount demanded for it.
MIR. ZUcK had been led TO make some special exam
ination of the question. He had found that the
Rogers Act appeared 10 be an Act in favor OF the
people, He could not see a9ythng in it which
ought to lead Senators to use SO much haste in the
repeal of that Act. Spring Valley asked the repeal
of this law to day because the Lake Merced scheme
had come to the front The motive of Spring Val
ley that they would have to pay taxes to assist
in purchasing a rival water privilege. This bin had
not yet been explained to his satisfaction. The
question was, Who represented San Francisco? The
legislative delegation favored the repeal Of this Act
while the Board OF Supervisors OF that city thought
it best that Lake Merced should be purchased. He
read the Act proposed to be repealed, and thought
it was an Act in the interest of the people Of san
Francisco. The people OF San Francisco in their
sovereign capacity the best judges Of the value
OF Lake Merced. The Senate should allow the peo-
pie of San Francisco to vote upon the proposition
as to whether they would pay 81 800, ,0O0 for that
lake or not. This law had been on the statute
books for four years. and the people of San Fran
cisco had before discovered that it was such
bad law He was in favor of letting the "Rogers
Act" remain on the statute books. BY the repeal of
this Act the Legislature would tie the hands of San
Franciscn in the future and place it at the mercy OF
Spring Valley
Mr.. Dickinson said that he had taken the steps he
had in favor of the repeal of the Rogers Act because
public opinion was in favor it. All the legislative
representatives on the Republican ticket in San
Francisco at the last election pledged themselves
among other things to the repeal OF this Act. He
would undertake to say that in its present form
the question never could be submitted to the people
of San Francisco. He read the Act, and showed
that there were two Boards of Commissioners pro-
vided for. He gave the proceedings under the law
at length. He held that after the powers given by
Section had been exercised by the Beard Of Com
missoners, the people had nothing more to do wi h
it. They could not then vote upon the question
That was the present condition OF affairs. There
was nothing in the whole Act that provided for the
award of the second Board of Commissioners being
submitted to the people. Private property could
not be taken for public use without due process of
law. Private property could not be condemned by
popular vote He did know whether the Spring
Valley Company were interested in this Act or not
He did not think public opinion had changed much
and read from the Bulletin and Call in support
of that position. He disagreed entirely with the
last speaker in regard to submitting the question
to the people.
Mr.. ENos deemed the question an important one
to San Francisco The water question was
which had interested the people OF San Francisco
for many years. Three hundred thousand people
were at the mercy of single gigantic corporation
This Rogers Act had its inception and conception
in that corporation. He first wanted all the facts
placed before the Senate but he in favor of the
passage of the bill and the repeal of the "Rogers
Act in accordance with his pledges TO his constitu
ens, and he would be in favor of it until the people
instructed him otherwise He read from the report
cf Colonel Mende in regard to Lake Merced. He
was not affected by the interest Spring Valley might
have in this matter way or the other. He
quoted q large number of authorities upon the sub
ject and held that it necessary under the law
that the Commission should consist Of seven. He
believed the acts of the Commission, constituted
it was were illegal, null and void
Mr.. KANE still felt the same about the bill as he
did when it was up last. This measure was in the
interest OF Spring Valley and he should vote against
it. He did not for the opinion Of the press Of
San Francisco much. The papers OF that city were
neither fish, flesh nor good red herring" lie was
instructed by his constituency he thought
best and he would vote against this bill
Mr.. SATTERwIITR thought that the arguments
against the validity Of the process Of the Act were
falacious He did not think Senators could be very
far wrong in voting to keep the Rogers Act on the
statute books. He argued the legal aspect Of the
case at some length. He held that the power of
eminent domain could be exercised outside of the
Courts. The State could delegate its power to pub
lie or quasi-public corporations He cited various
authorities in support of his position He believed
the Act to be constitutional
Mr.. DICKINSON explained that he agreed that it
in the power of the State to authorize property
to be condemned and to provide the manner. Bit
he held that in the Rogers Act the second Com
mission had been constituted Court.
Mr.. SATTERwHTTs held that il this Act vas re.
pealed the proceedings under it would fall TO the
ground and cited authorities on that point. There
some doubt about the policy of repeating the
Act. and he should vote against the bill.
Mr.. HIrrELL was Just as strongly in favor of the
passage Of this Act as he had ever been. He came
here, with the other Senators from San Francisco
publicly pledged TO the repeal of the Rogers Act
He held that the question could not be subjected to
vote OF the people under the present stage OF the
proceedings. II this Act allowed to stand upon
the statute books, San Francisco was compelled to