Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1880-01-12


ton or Individual any special exclusive right,
privilege immunity" II the repeating OF this
bill grants to San Francisco any particular p1ivi-
lege as against the Rogers Act or any action that
may have been taken by that Commission to con-
denim Lake Merced etend to say that il it is re-
lief to San Francisco against any person or lpdi
vidual, it strik that it is clearly unconstitu
tional. 1t strikes me it is prohibited here now.
Action had been taken under the law, and it Is now
for judicial action. 1t Is now
FOR THE COURTS TO SETTLE.
My county has special laws for roads and for salaries
Of officers and for almost everything, and they must
run on until we reach them by general law.
Itstrikes me that is the intention Of the new Con
stitution, and that we have right to repeal any law
that may refer to my county any county that will
conflict with any rights that have been granted to
the people, or to a person or corporation. That Is
the idea have OF this matter, and l would Ike to
have some light on the matter.
Mr.. MAYBELL-I will state why shall favor the
repeal of the Rogers At. / have read that Act
and am in favor OF repeating it because believe
it must have been written by corporation attorney
in favor OF corporation. | believe 1t is dog eat
dog. l believe that it Is Lake MERGED against
Spring Valley, and Spring Valley against Lake Mer-
ced and that when rogues fall out honest men get
their dues. But behind this Act of repeal may be
black cloud of corruption Probably upon the de.
structon of lesser evil it may be sought to build
up a greater one; but the majority of the San
Francisco delegation will be at all times ready to
vote to repeal cooperation Act, and they will also
Of anything in the shape of corporation Act That
is why shall favor the repeal
Mr.. DU BRUTZ was perfectly willing and anxious
to favor any bill that was in the interest OF the peo-
pie most concerned II the bill would be to the
advantage of San Francisco he wanted TO have it
passed. But he would like to know if the repeating
of this Act, in preventing San Francisco from pur-
chasing Lake MERGED, would not saddle upon San
Francisco the Spring Valley Water Company.
Would that not be
THE rprrrT oR IT'D
He was satisfied that the people of San Francisco
had for years been complaining of the high rate
charged by the Spring Valley Water Company, and
he feared that this Act night saddle that company
upon the CITY. He would like TO hear something
more upon that point.
Mr.. HARDY of San Francisco favored the repeal
and gave as his reasons that there an attempt
TO condem and purchase Lake MERGED, pond near
the ocean beach, which would not supply more
than one-quarter Of the water demanded by San
Francisco, and which not connected with that
city by mains He elaborated his reasons at length
Mr.. MERRY felt that he would be derelict in the
duty which he owed to his constituents, the people
of the city and county Of San Francisco if he failed
to raise his in behalf of this bill and to ask for
its passage In doing SO he would answer the ques-
ton of the gentleman from Santa Cruz, as to why
this Rogers Act had not been repealed before. 1t
because it had been ascertained by the opinion
of the Supreme Court that the Commission would
only have power to condemn water or water rights
on the peninsula of San Francisco.
Mr.. LANE said that he was the only member Of the
San Francisco delegation who had voted
AGAINST THE BILL.
He voted that way on the ground that it was not
right to Push any bill through so quick. 1t had been
stated that San Francisco in danger and that it
necessary to pass this bill quick because this
Commission had met He believed that if the Com
missioners had not condemned the property the bill
would have been brought up anyway.
Mr.. TYLER favored the repea. of the bill because
he had some property interest in San Francisco
He went back TO the pas age Of the Act and recited
the action taken under it since He did not believe
the city OF San Francisco could be made to pay the
award but the passage of this bill would save the
city from much expensive litigation As to its being
contrary to the Constitution, that was mere sham
The sections alluded TO had nothing to do with it.
Mr.. SIMON favored the passage of the bill because
the people of San Francisco wanted it passed. That
was enough for him.
Mr. MCDADE favored the repeal of the Rogers Act
because it gave too much power to one man. and be-
cause the people of San Francisco wanted it re-
pealed.
Mr.. CARR OF Yuba in great doubt about the
propriety of passing the bill, he had never yet
been able to find out what it was San Francisco
wanted on the water question. The press of that
city never agreed on it, and he could not decide
Mr. FIsLAysoS favored the passage of the bill
He recited, at some length, the course of the pre
ceedings under the Rogers Act, and took the same
gronnJ as Mr.. May.
because it was universally demanded by the people
of San Francisco The WOrkingmen of San Fran
cisco had not been pledged to the repeal Of the
Rogers Act as the Republicans had, but they de-
sired to carry out the wishes of the people of San
Francisco The sentiment there universal in
favor of the repeal. No doubt this bill did please
the Spring Valley. 1t was a case Of dog eat dog
his colleague had said, 1t was contest between
the houses of Montague and Capulet and he said:
PLAGUE oS BOTH YOUR HOUSES
the repeal of the Rogers Act, but San Francisco id
not want this pond of water called Lake MERGED.
Mr. CARR of Yuba-I move we adjourn.
Lost.
cause it universally demanded by the people of
San francisco.
Mr. GAFFEY favored the bill because the people of
San Francisco desired it, and for no other
Mr. MCINTOSH did not see the use in taking up all
this time in talking about it. He hoped they would
let Mr.. Fox close the debate and take vote.
Mr. MEDALLION hoped the bill would pass unani-
mously. He in favor Of it because San Francisco
wanted it.
Mr. MCGUIRE felt that the people Of San Francisco
wanted the Rogers Act repealed, and that il his
duty to vote for it.
Mr. Cook was not yet determined and wanted to
hear from Mr.. Fox, the author of the BILL to what
condition the repeal of this Act would leave San
Francisco in.
TIE AUTHORS REMARKS.
Mr.. Fox-Mr. Speaker, feel some interest in the
passage of the bill before the House, and will
deavOr before sit down to explain to the members
of the House what it is that are trying to repeal
and what will be its effect. But before enter upon
that explanation feel that in justice to myself
should put myself on fair footing and understand
ing with the Assembly and with its men,
bers. Much of the discussion that has
been bad here would lead one to suppose
that the Spring Valley Water Works repre-
sented, or has representative upon this floor,
seeking to accomplish some purpose itself. Hav
iDrr haau fora han oth
has served one client, the attorney Of
that corporation, | could not but believe that the
illusions to myself. That l upon this
floor the author of this BILL representing the Spring
Valley Water Works. Nov, want to say, and be-
lieve those members OF this Assembly who have known
me for many years-and thank God there are some of
them here who have known me TOR some tme-that
am not upon this floor the attorney of the Spring
Valley Water Works. / am lawyer, it is true. |
have been the official attorney of that corporation
for eighteen years. am its attorney to-day in the
Courts Of this State, but, sir, have er been its
attorney in any legislative or political matter. 1t
has attorney in me in the matter of legislation.
My allegiance legislator is to the people of Cal
fornia and to other corporation the face of the
earth l would hide my head in shame if could
accept place to legisate my claims my Clients
claims through the Courts
d l DEsPIsE THE LAWYER
Who will ever go into legislative body to legislate
his own claims through the Courts, or those OF his
clients wish it distinctly understood that stand
here as the representative Of the people. They are
my clients first, last and all the time when
to make laws when We come into the other branch
of the government to interpret laws and find out the
rights of individuals whether those individuals be
natural born persons artificial Ones there | ap-
pear and speak for my clients. But here we are
making laws. So much for my personal relation
or position. Now, l have been asked dozen
times since introduced this bill. What did you,
the attorney of the Spring Valley Water Works. in
troduce this bill for?" The attorney Of the Spring
Valley Water Works did not introduce it. The AS
semblyman from Alameda introduced it. 1t was
the Assemblyman from Alameda introduced the
bill, and nobodys attorney Why, then, did the
Assemblyman from Alameda introduce a bill
in reference to San Francisco? Because, though
he resides in Alameda and was elected from
that county, he is taxpayer Of San
Francisco second because his own immediate
almost onequarter Of all the taxes in the city and
county Of San Francisco; third, because he saw
the danger of delay in repeating this bill and the
necessity of early action. Mr.. Fox then proceeded
at considerable length to give complete history of
the Rogers Act and all that had been done under
it, celebrating what had been sketched by Mr. May.
The Act would have been repealed, he said, by the
Constitution on the LIST of July, but there was
danger to San Francisco in the meantime, and he
did not believe the city could be made to paw the
award but it could be annoyed by expensive litiga-
ton.
PASSAGE OF THU FIRST BILL.
On the passage of the bill the roll was called. and
there was only one vote in the negative-Mr. Lane,
of San trarciscothe vote standing, ayes H. noes l..
The Speaker appointed on the Engrossing Com
mittee Messrs Carr of Yuba, Cooper, Brusie and
Josseyn.
On motion Of Mr.. DEL VALE, at 2:52 P. n. the
Assembly adjourned to meet on Monday at IL A. n.
Suicide.