Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1880-02-11
ASSEMBLY,.
SACRAMENTO, February

SACRAMENTO, February 10, 1880.
The Assembly met pursuant to adjournment at
$50 A. NJ. Speaker Cowdery in the chair.
Roll called and quorum present.
Prayer by the Chaplain
Journal of Monday read
Journal OF Saturday approved.
PETITION.
Mr. MAY presented petition from the Ladies' Aid
and Protective Society of San Francisco, asking an
appropi iation.
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES.
The Committee on Agriculture reported back
number of bills.
The Committee on Engrossment reported back
bills Nos 62 and 243.
Mr.. MCCARTY asked after bill No. IS, from Com
mittee on Education.
Mr. WATSON explained and asked for further time.
Granted.
BILLS INTRODUCED.
Bills were introduced by Messrs. May, TYLER Cor
coran, Messenger and Cooper.
The Committee on Conference made report on
bills Nos 81, 80 and So, stating that an agreement
had been arrived az. The report Of the committee
was adopted.
FIRST READING OF BILLS.
All the bills introduced yesterday were read
first time and referred to appropriate committees.
NOTICES.
Mr.. McISTosu gave notice that he would call up
his notice to amend the rule on next Tuesday
Mr.. CUTnBGRT introduced bill out OF order in re-
lation to persons imprisoned in the State Prison.
SECOND READING OF BILLS.
Assembly Bill No. 199-An Act to amend Section
1895 of the Political Code relatn. reservation of
public lands for Indians (by Mr.. Messenger) The
committee amendments were adopted.
Senate Bill No. l43-A Act to repeal an Act enti-
tied Act for the appointment of Inspector of
Stationary Steam boilers and Steam-tanks, and for
the better security of life and property in the city
and county of San Francisco, approved March 81,
1876 (by Mr.. Enos.) Ordered read third time.
Senate Bill No 13-An Act to repeal an Act enti-
tlaI Aatto tlf,f he
county OF san Francisco, approved March l. 1876
and an Act amendatory Of and supplementary TO
the same. approved April, 3, 1876 (by Mr. Fol) Or
dered read third time.
THE SAN FRANCISCO CHARTER.
Assembly Bill No. 25-An Act to provide for the
election of fifteen freehoders to frame charter for
cities containing more than 100 900 Inhabitants and
to provide for the ratification of the same (by Mr.
Braunhart)
Opposed by Mr. MAY on the ground that it is un.
constitutional nasnnuch 1t deprives electors not
freeholders from holding place in the Board to
frame new charter for the city Of San Francisco
He moved to like out the enacting clause.
Mr. BRAUSuART offered as an argument in favor
of the bill that rceholders had the best right to
frame charter affecting the property owned by
them Let them frame the charter and let il be
ratified or rejected, as they deeth best. lie under
stood that there another charter proposed
which would give them sort Of autocratic govern
ment. He was opposed to it. There are but few
changes necessary to make the government conform
TO the CONSTITUTION. lnl5 Is SIMPLY an enabling
Act and he hoped the friends of the Constitution
would stand by the bill.
Mr. TYLER said the bill in violation of the
Constitution. He was anxious to carry out the
Constitution. But il says "any city containing
more than 100 900 inhabitants may frame charter
ETC." The authorities of the city alone do this,
and this Legislature has power to medde in the
matter. The Constitution says that it shall be sub
mitted to the Legislature for their ratification and
there is no such provision in this bill.
Mr.. BRlusHART said there necessity for it,
because that will remain for the next Legislature
pass on it.
slr TYLER said his objection was that this Legis.
lature ought not to be touched.
Mr.. Fox said the whole power is found in the
Constitution, and that is pernssive and no: manda-
| tory. The Legislature has no power to touch the
question. The whole machinery is provided for in
city government and the only thing the Legislature
| can do is to ratify the charter
Mr.. McDADE said the delegation not unani-
NOUS Four voted against it. Some thought it un-
necessary for the Legislature to do any ything in the
| matter, and that the Constitution was not manda.
| tory, but permssive
aNr. MCCARTHY opposed the bill, because the
charter would be required to be Kept for three
| before 1t could be submitted to the Legislature.
The next Legislature cannot reach it, and he thought
| the charter must originate in San Francisco.
Mr.. HARDY eoucurred in the above view. He read
| from the Constitution The city is permitted to
| continue under its present charter except where
that charter conflicts with the general law. The
| bill is unnecessary aud unconstitutional.
| Mr.. LANE opposed the charter.
| Dir. ASTBosY was opposed to it.
slr. BRUYER was opposed to putting in any prop
| erty qualification for anything.
Mr. DUBRuz thought the word " may mean' AN
s'm,lst in this sense He was in favor OF the bill.
| Mr. FELTON, was in favor of striking out the en-
/ acting clause.
Mr. CoRcoRAS said the section of the Constitution
| was not self.operatiye, and he in favor Of the
/ bill.
| Mr. SIMON said the people Of San Francisco expect
lust such bill as that to pass, and he was in favor
| of the bill He believed that freehoiders should
| frame the charter.
| MT GAPYEY believed that it should be left to tht
| people Of San Francisco who know their own want:
better than any one else
Mr.. McCALuox said the San Francisco delegation
are the representatives OF the people of that city
and they have reported it favorably. He was il
| favor of the bill.