Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1881-02-10
THURSDAY.
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE.
lcoNrHUED, FROM FIRST PAGE.

ICoNTINUED. FROM FIRST PAGE.
port of San Francisco, was alao passed-ayes A,
s b 25. releasing to VIM. Scholle and his assigns
certain lands in San Francisco, and authorizing the
Governor to make conveyance thereof, was hna4y
passed-ayes 4S, noes II.
Bills on the first and second reading ME were next
considered
b. 1924. 10 amend an Act to organize and define
the powers Of the Board OF Railroad Commissioners;
approved April 20, 1880 and A. u; 20 70 i1iilt-lu
Sect ons 5 and 53S OF the Code OF Civil PROCEDURE,
relating to attachments, were passed on ne.
A. B. 50, to amend section 1898 OF the Pohilcsi
Code and to provide that work upon the puoHc
buildings OF this State and OF every CITY, county,
and city and county, within this State shall be done
bv day labor and under the supervision oil super
intendent, or officer haylrg cnsrge oi Tue same No5
Mr. Jackson) was read second time
MI LEWIS moved 70 amend by inserting after tne
word State" in line OF the substitute the ioi
lowing: " Whenever the expenses OF such WORK uoe5
not exceed 81 00g-aud argued IN favor OF MS mo
tion He desired to see work on public buildings
done by contract, and not by day labor lie old
not believe the substitute in the interest OF the
aboring men, and declared that 1t would, II ADOPT,
ed open the door TO fraud and corruption. lie sad
that in San Francisco there was white elepnant-
the new City Hall-and one Of the Commissioners
under whose supervision the hall was DeiBg Dult
was a political demag0gue OF the sand-lot school,
and the great hobby Of this man, who had been on
the hOor lobbying in favor OF the passage OF this
bill, was dag llbor.
Mr.. MAY was adverse to the bill, and said that it
was only designed for the benefit OF the menagerie
Of San Francisco The bill was not in the interest
of the working men 1t would knock the paddock
off the vaults Of the treasury OF San Francisco and
would give the boys chance
Mr. LANE claimed that the State lost money When
ever it let out its work by contract and made plea
IN favor OF tie bill and against the amendment
The bill if passed, he maintained, would be wise
measure Of economy, such as would save thousands
of dollars to the State.
Mr.. Plat spoke N favor OF the system of day
labor on public buildings. The laborers should be
employed, so far as possible, by the state, and De
well paid for their services, even though II costs
more money. The passage OF the bill would not
make any more work, but it would enable the men
who were employed TO get higher wages.
Mr. JACKSON, speaking against the amendment
and in support OF the substitute to the bill, said
The bill simply extends the operation OF the law To
city and county buildings, the same as It now eXi IS
to all State buildings under Section $50 OF the 20
hticd Code In other We rds it places all buildings
in cities and counties the same footing as build
ings in the State which built with the peoples
money The New City Hall Act of March "a, 1876,
is not part of the Consolidation Act or Charter OF
San Francisco by being First, incorporated IN said
Act or second, in terms made amendatory OF 1t, or
Of any Act that forms a part OF 1t; or thlrd, IN
terms made supplemental TO 1t, or to any Act that
forms part OF it. That act Is simply an lndepend-
ent and special Act, applying to San Fran
CISCO as hundreds OF others do, which Is
not inconsistent with the new constitution
but is expressly continued IN force by Section OF
Article XXll., known as the schedule Thereon, aud
which bv this section is subject to amendment or
alteration or repeal But this bill does not in terms
assume to amend or alter the New City Hall Act at
all vet if it did it would be entirely constitutional
under said Section / Article MIL Constitution. It
is general law applicable to the whole State, and
is in conformity with the decision CT the supreme
Court in the case Of Desmond vs.. Dunn, or the Nc
Clure Charter case, in the case OF Earle vs. tine
Board of Education, and in every decision made I'M
der the new Constitution bearing on the subject
This bill is not in terms amendatory OF Section 3233
Of the Political Code, and il it was it would be en-
tirey constitutional under Section l, Article A&Il
new institution IL is perfectly competent for the
Legislature to pass any general law ap
plicabie alike to all cities and counties in this
State. The bill is not political In ITS character,
and the original proposition as TO State buildings
was adopted in the Code, by both Republicans and
Democrats, and never questioned on party or policy
grounds by any party. Inc law as TO state oulid
ings has been carried out by both Republicans and
Democrats and no complaints have ever been made
against its practical workings on the grounds that 1t
is bad measure, or an unwise one or an expensive
one Practically it does not now affect the work
upon the new City Hail. as the New City Hall Com
mission has already let the work out to contract.
This bill only requires such labor as can and must
be done by hand to be done by the day-sueh as
masonry work, plastering work and carpenter work
this and nothing more. Il does not take outof con
tract at all the raw materials, manufactured ma
terials mill work foundry work, machinery work.
or the iron work, or any other work requiring the
would seem to be than fair division with econ
tractors 1t snot right give contractors everything
and the men who do the work nothing besides, twill
be found in the future, as 1t has been IN the past
to be the cheapest and best, as to this kind OF
work-hard labor. In other words it means that
when a mechanic or aboring man does his full days
work. he shall receive his full days wages, and not
such proportion of them only as some contractor
chooses to give him, putting the balance which
Justly belongs TO the man who earned it, into his
own pocket for other reason than that he Is per-
United by law to speculate of OF the labor OF the
man who performs the work. Bills afecting corpor-
atoms, contractors, and the wealth OF the state,
are being passed by this Legislature, and this about
the only bill the poor laborIng people nave asked al
the hands OF this body. And the question is Shall
they be denied even this little crumb OF comfort,
this little pittance? or, have the common people
the laboring class, the great mass of your eonttu-
ents-ro rights 10 foster, toprOtect and defend! ms
"a question that addresses itself 10 the sound judy
rnent and sympathies of every member OF the Legis
lature 1t will work no wrong to the State or peo-
pie but will do much good TO the poor laboring
classes who do the work and pay their little mite
OF taxes which, aggregated together, make up the
great body of the revenue out OF which these public
buildings are constructed.
Mr. LRwIs again spoke against the bill.
Mr. GILMORE urged its passage, saying that the
contract system was odous to the people, and that
a radical change vas demanded in the interest OF
labor. Il was we'll known he said that work done
bv contract was far inferior TO that performed by
day labor The new Constitution also provided
that work done upon all public buildings should be
executed by the latter system
Mr. MAY said il was not the policy OF the legis-
lator to advocate measures which would increase
the expenditures Of the State, but rather t. try to
reduce them Hence the bill should be defeated.
The true inwarness of the case that contractors
got the best possible labor irrespective OF politics.
whereas under the system OF day labor men would
be employed on the New City Hall by partisan
Board OF Commissioners unless he were recon-
meiided by the Ward Clubs 1t was the intention
of the bill to turn the City Hall into political ma
chine.
The amendment was defeated.
MIR CANNON then moved to amend by inserting
the words or works after the word building"
in line of Section !.
Mr. JACKSON remarked that he hoped the amend
rnent would not be adopted.
Mr.. MAY hoped that it would be- as it would in.
clude the debris.
The roll was called, and the amendment was lost
ayes 81, noes H.
Mr. MCCLURE moved to indefinitely postpone the
bill.
Ruled out OF order by the Speaker.
vote was then taken upon the adoption OF the
substitute recommended by the committee, and re-
suited in its adoption ayes 81, noes IS,
The bill was then ordered engressed and to third
reading ayes go, noes so.
Messrs KELLOGG and MCCLURE gave notice OF re-
consideration.
At 5 O'Clock the Assembly adjourned.