Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1880-04-07

| ayes 10 IL noes.
| The roll was called and the bill was passed by a
| vote OF % ayes to 10 noes.
Assembly Bill No 143-An Act to amend an Act
entitled an Act relating to apprentices and masters
approved April g. 1876 (by Mr.. Fox)-was read third
time.
Mr. CoSeER hoped the bill would be defeated. 1t
was re-enactment of the old apprentice law, and
provided system OF slavery.
Mr.. ENoS also opposed the bill. Ii gave parents
the right to bind out their children.
Mr.. NEUMANN said the bill was exactly the present
law except that it made the citation in the Superior
| Court instead OF the Probate Court
The bill passed by vote Of Is ayes to noes.
Assembly Bill No. IAN Act to empower theDirect-
ors of Levee District No l, of Sutter county, TO
issue bonds for the payment or funding of the
funded Indebtedness of said levee district and to
provide for the redemption Of such bonds by taxing
the property in the district fby Mr.. Chandler)-was
read third time.
Mr.. DAVIS explained the nature and objects OF the
bill and urged its passage
| The bill passed by vote Of 80 ayes to noes
| Hill ard Rowel.
Senate Bill No. 276-An Act to amend Section 364i
of the Political Code, relating the assessment Of
| vessels (bY Mr.. Nendell-wa read a third time.
| Mr.. DICKINSON opposed the passage of the bill 1t
would impose great deal Of unnecessary work
upon Assessors.
| that the property should be assessed where the
owner resides. Heretofore the San Francisco dele
CATION had been strong enough to defeat the idea OF
this bill
Mr.. CoSaER said the bill was simply to take out
of San Francisco taxes that belonged there All
vessels were registered in San Francisco and ought
| to be taxed there. They might be owned in New
York, but if they registered i'll San Francisco,
| they ought to be taxed there.
Mr. Ryan held that vessels should be taxed where
they owned. There were vessels partly owned
and used entirely in Humboldt county, and vet they
were taxed in San Francisco because they reg
istered there. That not fair
| Mr.. EITTELL thought the bill would be very diff
cult to enforce. Ii it was passed much of this class
OF property would escape taxation altogether. Ii
vessel was owned in San Bernardno, under this bill
it could not be taxed at all.
Mr.. JOHNSON held that the bill was not open to
the criticisms of Mr.. Hittell He held that the bill
was Just and proper one. The vessels paid enough
to San Francisco The vessels owned in this county
by the farmers ought not to be taxed in San Fran
| cisco.
The bill was passed by vote of "a ayes to Is
noes.
On motion of Mr.. TRAYLoR the Senate took up out
of order Senate Bill No. 374-An Act TO provide for
the further extension Of the water front line of the
city and county of San Francisco and the construc-
ton of the sea-wail (by Mr.. TrayloD.
The bill was read third time and passed by vote
of 81 ayes to noes.
! THE DEBRIS BILL
The Senate resumed consideration of Assembly
| Bill No. 334-An Act to promote drainage.
The question was on the amendment TO Section q,
offered by Mr.. Nye.
Mr.. DAVIS again spoke against the amendment.
| He could see merit IN the amendment and looked
upon it with suspicion, because he knew the author
OF 1t to be unalteraby opposed to the bill in any
| form. The amendment would allow the whole State
| to be included in one dra mage district The bill
| was not solely 10 benefit one intef est 1t a
question of the preservation of the rivers OF the
State and Of the Bay of San Francisco. The tax
imposed upon the State by this bill was insignif-
can't 1t only $ on $4,000. This bill had been
| thoroughly discussed in the Assembly and in the
State for the past two months. If these amend
ments were adopted the bill would never be passed.
Mr.. LANGFoRD favored the amendment. The
| m fay IN nf he
| tallings of the mines.
The amendment was lost by the following vote /:
Ayes-Anderson, Cha;e, Glascock, German, Har
Ian, Hudson, Kane, Langford, Nye, Pardee, Rowel
Zuck-l2.
Noes-saker, Burt, Carlock, Cheney Conger
Davis, Dickinson Enos, George, Hill, Hittell, John
son, Johnston, Kelly, Moreland, Nelson, Pool, Ryan
Sears, TraylOr, Watson, West %.
Mr.. satterwhite (aye) paired with Mr.. Eeumanr
(no)
Mr. SEARS moved to strike out of Section the
| word several"
The section as it stood was as follows Section
The Governor, Surveyor General and State Engineer
shall be ofico members of and constitute BoarC
of Drainage Commissioners to divide the State into
several drainage districts and organize the same ~
hereinafter provided. The Governor shall be Presi
dent of the Board and the office of the Board shal
be in the State Engineers office at the State Capi
tol. The Secretary to the State Engineer shall bt
Secretary of the Board"
Messrs. JOHNSON and DAVIS opposed the amend
ment. 1t could do no good, and would only delay
the bill and make trouble in the Assembly.
| Mr.. SEARS said the word =" several meant mort
than two three. 1t means many" He offereC
the amendment in good faith.
Mr.. DICKINSON opposed the amendment. It wa.
necessary to leave some discretion in the Board o
Drainage Commissioners. That was absolutely
necessary under the Constitution. The bill must be
a general one. He was opposed to mutilating bill
by making unnecessary amendments.
Mr.. PARDEE hoped the amendment would bC
adopted The Commissioners ought to be tied vi
as closely possible, and this would do it. The
Commissioners, no matter who they were, would
take all the liberties they could.
Mr.. CoSGER opposed the amendment. The worC
"sevorai meant "separate" . distinct IN,
bill simply meant that the Commissioners shoulc
divide into separate and distinct districts
The amendment was lost by vote OF II ayes to Y
noes.
The Secretary read Section ., as follows:
Section p Within thirty days after the p1ssagt
of this Act, soon thereafter may be prac
| ticabie, the State Engineer SHALL submit to sdi(
Board report or reports containing the results o
his investigations drainage having in view tht
control OF debris from mining and other operations
the improvement and rectificaton OF river ch nnes
the erection OF embankments or dyAes necessary fo
the protection Of lands, towns cities from inun
dation. He shall also make special examinations
with reference to the division of the State into
era drainage districts, each of which shall include
territory drained by natural system of drainage
and shall report to the Board of Drainage Comms
soners the results OF his examinations, and shal
from time to time propose boundaries for such dis
. tricts and recommend their formation"
Mr. ROwELL moved to amend Section 2, by strik
ing out OF line the words and other" and inser
the word - and between the words operations
. and the in line ; also striking cut AL after thi
word '' channels in line s. and al! of line to tht
! word "he." lie held thai thiJ was only to STRIKE
out the reclamation provisions.
Mr. JOHNSON opposed the amendment. 1t wa,
! unnecessary AID improper The author of the
amendment would not vote for the bill even if tn,
amendment adopted
Mr. GLAscock favored the amendment, and un
dersood that the godfather of the bill had no OBJ
lection to it,
Mr. RowELL held that the bill ought to be re
stncted to the improvement OF the river channel;
and restraining OF the debris Under this clause
! the Commissioners might attempt the drainage O
Tulare lake or any other place
r Mr JOHNSON wanted no amendments to the bill
He Gid not want the bill jeopardized. He wa!
credbly informed that caucus was held last even
ing by the opponents Of the BILL at which it de
, cided 10 make certain opposition to the bill HI
called on the friends OF the bill to vote down any
and all amendments proposed by the enemies of tht
, bill.
Mr. WATSON opposed the amendment. He wal
, surprised that there was still SO much ignoranc,
upon this subject. 1t had been before the Legisla
ture for years, and had been thoroughly discussed
in all its bearings. The last Legislature had pro
vided for an Engineering Commission to examn,
into the question: and this bill simply to carry
out the recommendation OF the State Engineer. III
) read from the Engineers report In support af hi
position, and urged the passage OF the bill as i
stood. 1t was of no use to amend it farther If th
State made some effort the United States Govern
ment would come in and assist.
Mr.. SATTERwHITB said the subject was not thor
t oughly investigated two years ago. The State En-
gineers Department created for the purpose
of looking after this subject of debris and also th
subject OF irrigation. They had done nothing il
regard to irrigation They had spent all their time
4 on the other questions entirely.
Mr. NEUMASS said this amendment was offered il
the committee and rejected 1t could make no i'm
provement in the bill The section did not provide
for the brildiDg of any dyke or embankment. L
simply directed the State Engineer to report the
) suit of his Investigations
Mr. WEST wished it understood that the votes ht
should give on .mendments would not indicate hi:
action on the passage of the bill He should vots
with the friends of the bill on its second reading
l and then decide how to vote on its passage.
: Mr. CHASE thought this bill the worst piece OF leg
is.aton ever introduced in the Legislature He ia
l vorsd the amendment and would favor every othel
amen ment that would impair or destroy the bill.
He believed it right for the opponents of the bill Il
favor all amendments that would njure the bill. L
there was any interest in this State that could not
support itself the State ought not to support it.
the miners could take care OF their taiings lei
the State put stop to them.
Mr.. KANE was in favor Of the amendment anG
against the bill He was opposed to levying such
tax on San Francisco. He darkly insinuated that
there was something wrong about the bill. He said