Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1880-01-16
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE.
TWENTY-THIRD SESSION.
ELEVENTH DAY.
IPhonographicaly Reported for the RECORD -UNIo!
by Willis & Stocston.l
SENATE.

SENATE.
SACRAMENTO January -, 1880
The Senate met at 10 A. NJ, pursuant to adjourn
ment Pres dert Mansfield in the chair.
Roll called and quorum present.
Journal OF yesterday approved.
SPECIAL oRDER-RULE 6.
The Senate then took up the special order made
last evening, which the appeal from the decision
of the President holding thai all bills must be read
three times at length.
The PREsIDENrSThe Chair, in explanation of its
ruling, desires to state tn At he is perfectly familiar
with the rule of parliamentary construction as con-
tended for by the Chairman OF the Committee on
Rules the Senator from the Fifteenth, supported by
the Senator from the Fourteenth, the c. airman of
the Committee on Judiciary, but will call the atten.
ton of the Senators and of the Senate to another
equally familiar rule of construction, and followed
by all Courts and that is. in case Of doubt on qnes-
tions upon contracts other written instruments,
the Courts seek the intention of the parties through
other portions OF the same instrument, or the cir
cumstances under which it was executed. Following
the latter rule, he has only to look az the Judgment
of the committee of the Convention expressed in
its address to the people, which it adopted as its
own, and by its order was sent out with the C0nsti
tuition, which contains the exact language contended
for and the Interpretation OF It's own solemn act as
they understood it, with the for it, 1t is to
prevent hasty and vicious legislation The people
accented this construction and adopted the Consti-
tuition, and the Chair thinks that it is the duty Of
the Legislature aud the Courts to follow that con-
struction strictly, and if it is found nconvenient
and injurious, bv reason OF its delay in legislation
let it be amended and submitted to the people ut
the next election.
NEW PLAN.
Mr.. SEARs-I desire to offer resolution, and sim.
ply state what it is in order that the Senate may
perhaps not object to its introduction. After the
discussion here last night and the differences of
opinion by lawyers and others for whose opinions
have great respect came to the conclusion that it
would be better to ask the opinion of the Supreme
Court of the State upon this very important ques-
ton. / therefore drafted resolution which re-
quests the Supreme Court to give its opinlon on
this question, and, by permission OF the Senate,
will introduce it.
The Secretary read the resolution, as follows
WHEREAS, doubt exists in the minds of many
members of the Senate and Assembly OF the State
of California now in session to the proper con-
struction of Section 10 OF Article " of the Consti
tuition, relative to reading bills and whereas, the
validity OF all laws passed by the twenty third ses-
sion OF the Legislature may be involved by the pro-
ceeding and practice Of such Legislature concern
ing the reading OF bills and Whereas it is of great
importance to the State that an opinion concerning
said section OF the Constitution should be obtained
from the highest judicial tribunal OF the State :;
therefore be it
Resolved by the Senate, the Assembly concurring
That We request the Supreme Court of the State to
give its opinion upon the following questions
all bills at length upon their first and secocd read
ngs! Second, if bill, stead OF b.ing read at
length, have only its title read for the first and
ond reading then the bill for the third reading be
read at length its final passage, would such prac
tice fully comply with said section OF the Constu
tion in regard to the reading OF bills?
Mr.. SEARS said he was aware that it would be dis.
cretionary with the Supreme Court whether they
would give opinion not, but he believed they
would
Mr.. SATrERwuITR was opposed to the adoption of
the resolution, on the ground that the Supreme
Court would not be likeyto give an opinion and, If
they did, it would not be binding them when they
came to construe law after its passage.
Mr. CHASE held that the Senate should decide
upon their own rules and not appeal to the Supreme
Court. II they would go on and read all bills three
times by title they were safe.
Mr.. NEUNlSN did not believe in seeking counsel
from the Supreme Court the adoption of the
rules,
Mr.. BAKER spoke in favor OF the resolution, and
suggested that some of the Senators be sent to pre-
sent the case fairly to the Supreme Court with the
arguments on both sides.
Mr.. ESos was opposed to the resolution, and
thought the only way to be sure they were right
was to read all bills three times at length.
Mr.. WENDELL favored the resolution. The Assem-
bly, passing bills which only read by title
on their first reading, and even if the bi Is were
read three times at length in the Senate they would
not be constitutional, ii the Supreme Court after
wards held three readings at length in each house
to be necessary.
Mr. CHENEY favored the adoption of the resou-
tion. He had been of the opinion that the Con
stitution clearly required the reading OF all bills
three times at length, from examining the address
sent out with the Constitution. On learning the
manner in which that address mad been
framed ard adopted he was in doubt and thought it
well to ask for on opinion from the Supreme Court
Mr.. CoNGER held that the only safe way was to
read all bills at length three times.
Mr.. DAVIS believed that the constitution required
three readings OF each bill at length but the AS
sembly had adopted the opposite rule II was OF no
for the to enter upon it. He should vote
for the resolution in order to get an opinion from
the Supreme Court.
ITS HISTORY.
Mr. BURT gave the history OF the proceedings OF
the Constitutional Convention on this subject, and
OF the hurried adoption of the address thai accom-
panied it, He said that the address did not ema
nate from the committee appointed for that purpose
by the Chairman OF the Convention, but By
committee OF members that had been requested
to prepare it by ma jority of the members.
This committee met and parceled out the different
parts of the Constitution among gthem. Each drew
up his part in rough notes. and these all were
turned over to the Clerk, who wrote them all out
together. The legislative department was the share
of Mr.. Filcher OF Placer. He had seen Mr.. Eilcher
a few days since, and that gentleman said he did
not remember having put III the words 90 read at
length Us they appearn the address, and could not
tell whether he did it or whether it had been done
by the Clerk At all events, Mr. Filcher told him
that 1t was his understanding of it that it was not
meant that the bills should be read at length full
three times, but only on the final passage. That
also his opinion Of it,
Mr.. MoEELAND stated that his opinion was the
same as that OF Mr. Burt, and his recollection OF the
manner in which the address gottenup the
same, as he was on that committee.
Mr. WEST agreed with the last two gentlemen as
to the history OF the address, but believed that it
was intended that all bills should be read three
times at length.
Mr.. GLAscocK also believed that the intent was to
have all bills read three times by title.
Mr.. DICKINSON argued in favor of the three read
ings and opposed the resolution. He thougat il
best to pass bill and submit to the Supreme
Court.
Mr. LAMPsoN agreed with the position taken by
Mr.. Burt and dr Morelaud and corrooorated their
statements in regard to the history of the address
Mr.. GoRNAS believed the intent was to have all
bills read three times at length He was opposed to
the resolution or to taking any other course
Mr.. BROWN spoke briefly in favor of the resou-
tion.
Mr.. WATSON thought the suggestion of Mr. Dick
inson good one that bill be passed and made a
test case before the Supreme Court.
Mr.. NELSON took the same ground as, Mr.. German.
The roll called on the adoption of the resolu-
tion and it was lost by the following vote:
Ayes-Baker. Burt, Cheney, Davis, Httell, Hud-
son. Johnson, Lampson, Moreland, Pardee howell,
Ryan, Sears, Traylor, Wendell West, Zuck-l7
Noes-Anderson, Brown, Carlock, Chase, Conger,
Dickinson, Enos, George, GIascock Gormsn, Har-
Ian, Hill, Johnston, Kane Kelly, Langford Nelson,
Neunann, Nye, Pool, Satterwhite, Watson-22.
THE CONCLUSION.
The question then cameo nthe appeal
The PREsIDENT-Ihe question is, Snail the deci.
sion OF the Chair stand Us the judgment of the
Senate?
The roll was called, and the President sustained
by the following vote:
Ayes-Anderson, Brown. Carlock, Chase, Cheney,
Conger, Dickinson, Enos Glascock, German, Har-
Ian, Hill, Johnston, Kane, Kelly, Lampson, Lang
ford, Nelson, Neumann, Nye Pool, Watson, West
-23.
Noes Baker, Burt, Davis, George, HitteI, Hud-
son, Jonnsln, Morelsnd, Pardee lowell, Ryan, Sat-
terwhite, Sears, Traylor, Wendell, Zuck-l6
On casting his vote Mr.. NYE explained that he
had some doubts about the position he took yeser.
day after further examination, and thought that it
might be that the word read was not intended to
be used in its technical sense
Mr.. DAVIS explained his vote, that he held it use
less Tor the Senate TO read three times when the As
sembly was taking the opposite course.
The Senate took a recess of one hour.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
The Senate reassemoled at 1:S0P NJ Roll called
and quorum present.
GOVERNORS MEssAGE-APPoISTNESrs.
The Senate went .nto executive session to con-
slider the appointment of George S. Evans, of San
Joaquin county, as State HIrbor Commissioner; ].
X. Doak, Of San joaquin county o. Harvey, of Sac.
ramento county, Robert Watt, of Marin county, and
Donald McLennau, of San Francisco, as Directors OF
the Insane Asylsm.
The first two appointments we're taken up sepa-
rately and on call Of the roll unanimously con-
hrmed
The question came on the appointment of Obed
Harvey.
MIR. SATTERwHITE-obedH Harvey is not a fit per-
son to hold this place from the vote we took the
other day, nut l am in hopes that the Senate will
change its views this subject and confirm O5ed
Harvey, for the reason tha Governor Irwin believed