Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1880-01-15

been read IN accordance with the provisions of the
Constitution is sufficient to satisfy any Court which
| may be called upon to pass upon this matter.
| Mr. SEARS NOV, the adoption of the rule
hr. DICKINSON was in favor OF the adoption of the
rule but did not wish it to be taken as settling the
question as to whether the reading of bill by title
was reading of the bill in the mea ipp Of the
Constitution. The Senate could proceed under that
rule and the journals would show each ill to have
been read three times. No Court would 90 behind
the, journals To ascertain whether they had been
read at length or not He thought their passage
would be perfectly valid but he would not favor the
rule il it was to be considered putting construc-
tion upon that section Of the Constitution that the
reading Of bill by title reading of the bill
| within the meaning of the Constitution.
MR.. ESos' VIEWS
| Mr. President, l regret very much to hear a GER
tain proposition argument advanced here in this
discussion and that is that if the journals of this
house did not tell the truth that the Courts are
bound to take the very ground that did read the
bills here three times at length that the Courts
would not go behind the journals of this Senate ami
Assembly Now do not propose, as one Of the
Senators this floor to allow any such record
kept that the bills read at length when they
only read by title, and | would ask the gentleman
last up if it is the privilege of any Senator on this
floor to demand the reading Of all bills three times
Mr.. DIcKISsoN-I state it parliamentary rule
that such is the case.
Mr. ENos-Theni it is conceded as understand it,
that any Senator demand the reading of all bills
read.
Mr. SEARs-I wish to correct an erroneous impres.
sion which the Senator may be laboring under. The
Senator has right to ask for the reading of bill
at length. Then the Senate by Its vote can deter
mine whether they will dispense with the reading
or not. The Senator has not the absolute right to
have every bill read through at length that he re-
quests, unle the Senate by its vote may grant him
that request
Mr. ESos-It seems we are in doubt as to what
this rule means. have asked the learned gentle
man who is Chairman of the Committee on Rule. if,
in all the State Constitutions from which he has
quoted, there is section like that contained in
Section % Of our Constitution, which reads fol-
lows
datory and prohbltory unless by express words
they declared to be otherwise
Now, in Section Is, 90 No law shall be passed ex-
cep by bill. Nor shall any bill be put upon its final
passage until the game, with the amendments
thereto, shall have been printed for the of the
members nor shall any bill become law unle,s
the same be read on three several DAYS in each
house. unless in case OF urgency, twothirds of the
house where such bill may be pending, shall, by a
vote of yeas and nays dispense with this provision.
Any BID may originate in either house, but may be
amended or rejected by the other and on the final
passage of all bills they shall be read at length and
the vote shall be by yeas and nays upon each bill
separately, and shall be entered on the journal !;
and no bill shall become law without the
concurrence of majority OF the members elected to
each house. Now that is mandatory, and the de-
cisOns that have been made under the Constitutions
referred to BY the gentleman from Marin contain
such provisions as / have read-Section % making
them mandatory and prohibitery. Now something
has been said in relation to the intent of the trainers
of this Constitution this question. have not
been favored with the privilege of looking the
history of these debates, but have consulted with
eminent men and as good lawyers in that
Convention upon this question, and they are clear
that cannot read bill by title, but that to
conform with this provision of the Consti-
tuition the bill must be read three times
af Ritt tn fha 1inl, 80
sued by the members of the Constitutional Conven-
tion and find the name of the President of the
Senate attached to that address, and in commenting
on this section of the organic law to the citizens OF
the State, find this language 1t IS further pro.
vided that no bill shall become law until printed
and read at length on three several days" This
address was prefaced and signed by more than
.hreefourths OF the members OF the Convention. 1t
was prepared and signed by the men who, when
they had performed their work. committed it to the
people with their address recommending its adop-
ton. Now, where else shall we go to find thing
better than in the address prepared at the moment
when the Convention adjourned All that was
said during these discussions upon this ques-
ton fresh in the minds of the members
of the Convention, and for these reasons, and in
view of the provisions of Section %, I opposed
to any bill being put upon its passage until it has
been read at length three times, three distinct
days. Now Mr.. President, we have difference of
opinion as to duty. Would it not be better-it
is precaution prudence demands of this Senate
that we shall be on the safe side, so to leave
doubt hereafter, that b an appeal to the Supreme
Court of this State all our la3ors will be set aside
Why, there is the learned gentleman from Marin,
who has made careful estimate OF the cest of
reading these bills at length, and he thinks it
will take forty days to read them all. Suppose it
takes 400 days had better be acting legally and
rirht than to act otherwise for 100 days and have
all our labors set aside Why, the very object of
passing these provisions that hasty legislation
had inflicted injury upon the State. Why, he says
if do this it will protract the session and increase
the expenditures $1,000 | would remind the dis
tinguisbed gentleman from Marin that during the
last session of the Legislature there was 81 COO
put upon the taxpayers OF the city and county of
san Francisco by this rushing through bills before
the people knew what they 1ere. For these reasons
| am opposed TO the adoption of any rule without
we know what that rule means. l. was for this Oh
ject and purpose that objections were made yester
daY when these rules before the Senate for
sideration. Ans, while there is doubt, can put
ourselves beyond that doubt by SIMPLY having the
bills read three times at length on three separate
days.
TIE RULE ADOPTED.
The roll was called the adoption OF the rule,
and it was adopted by vote Of 20 ayes to 10 noes
Senators JOHNSON and WEST in voting " no" ex-
plaine1 that they did because they d not con-
slider that the question was settled by the rule.
IN ANOTHER FORM
The Senate then took up another method to bring
up and discuss the same issue.
With the consent of the Senate Mr.. ESos intro
dueed an Act to amend Section 1120 of the Code Of
Civil Procedure.
The Secretary read the title of the bill, the enact
ing clause, and down to "Section l.
Mr.. JoHNsoN-I will ask the President If that is
considere the first reading OF the bill
The PREsIDKNT-The Chair will rule that it is not
reading Of the bill in the sense Of the Constitution.
Mr.. JoHNsoN-I respectfully appeal from the de-
cision of the Chair.
The President The Chair ruled that the reading
of bill by title not first reading of the bill
from which decision the Senator from the Eighteenth
takes an appeal Shall the decision OF the Chair
stand as the judgment of the Senate?
Mr. JOHNSON called upon Senator Nye, Chairman
of the Committee ON Judiciary, for his opinion on
the question.
Mr.. NYE held that the word 4" read was to be
taken in its parliamentary sense and that the Con-
stitution did not that i'll should be read
three times at length He gave number of illus
trations where words had changed their meaning
and new meaning was attached to them by COM
mon use.
Mr. DICKINSON took the opposite side Of the ques-
tion, and spoke at length upon it. He read from
many Constitutions and held that under the Ian
guage OF Section Is Of Article ". bills must be
read at length three several times, unless it was
done in the way proposed in Rule 6.
Mr.. SATTERWIIITR took the same line Of argument
as that of Ar. Scars, and thought it was very clear
that il was the intent of the trainers of the Consti
tuition and the obvious construction of the language
that bills should only be read at length on their
final passage in order To comply with the section.
Mr.. SEARS again spoke on his side of the question.
Pending the discussion of the question it was, on
motion of Ar. BROWN, made the special order for
journal.
On motion of Mr.. DAYS., at P. NJ the Senate ad
journed.