Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1881-02-03
Afternoon Session.

ReaSSembled at P NJ.
The special order Of the hour, viz: the Street
Contractors job, introduced by Mr.. Gilmore OF San
Francisco, and known as A. B. y, to provide a
remedy in cases were damages have been sustained
by the Illegal proceedings of municipal officers, and
for the payment Of the same, reported for passage
by the Committee on SClams, was read third time
and c)nsidered.
Mr.. LEWIS moved to strike out the enaetng clause.
Seconded by Mr.. WHIPPLR.
Mr. GILMORE spoke adversely to the motion and
in favor Of the BILL saying if he thought it
be could make an extended argumentin favor of the
bill.
Mr. LEWIS replied that the bill was an outrage
upon the taxpayers of San Francisco, and without
equities 1t grew out Of an irrepressible conflict
between the property owners aid the street con-
tractors of San Francisco, which has been in pro-
gress for years past and the contractors have dur
ing such time always got the better OF it. sum
aggregating nearly IS 900, 900 involved in the
bill II passed it would open the Courts to the lit
igation OF endless corrupt claims. He hoped, ac-
cordiugly, it would be defeated.
Mr.. JACKSON said, as he understood the BILL it
provided merely to give such contractors had Just
and equitable claims chance to seek redress in the
Courts, and was not in the interest of corrupt
claims.
Mr. MEDALLION spoke also to the same purpose
Mr.. BAKER of Yolo argued in support OF the bill,
saving that contractors compelled to give bonds
for the faithful discharge of their duties, and the
city and not innocent persons ought accordingly to
be held responsible for non performance of such
duties The bill was not for the purpose Of making
property liable for the losses sustained by the street
contractors in the execution of work which had
resulted to the benefit OF San Francisco The mer-
its If the bill rested upon the broad basis that
municipal corporations were liable to damages for
losses sustained through the negligence OF its Off
Gals
Mr.. LEWIS GRterrupting) asked if the gentleman
believed that the Legislature ought TO 90 behind
the terms of the contracts which expressly provided
that the city should be held liable for the non
execution OF the contracts
Mr.. BAKER, in reply, said that he believed in max
ing the city liable to legal penalty for the remiss
of its officials The newspapers had teemed with
reports Of fraud and collusion but the Courts were
the proper tribunals for the adjudication OF all such
difficulties. He desired information, and if there
were any good reasons, any coilusen between con-
tractors and Superintendent of Streets any fraud
against the city of San Francisco, then he would
like to have it shown by the gentlemen who were
adverse to the bill, and then he would, ii such
ditions proved, vote with them ainst the bill
Mr.. ARICR made few remarks in support Of the
opinions advanced by Mr.. Baker. He believed there
should be allowed test case to determine whether
not these contractors were entitled to any equi-
ties in Court of record.
Mr.. PLAT said there were equities on both sides
OF the case, which was an old issue in a new form.
San Francisco was deeply interested in the bill,
which, singularly enough was defended by gentle
man who did not represent San Francisco. He be-
lieYed that the issues must be decided accord
ing to the greatest equities. II vas expressly stated
in the organic law that the Superintendent of
Streets himself, and not the city, should be held
liable for any official deTelction of duty But there
was broader issue involved, viz: whether or not
specified property in San Francisco should be bur-
dened with a tax amounting perhaps to two millions
OF dollars Such requirement would be unjust,
and could only be met by the unsatisfactory argIl-
ment that the whole city was benefited by Improve
ments upon property in any section OF the city.
the bill were to be passed the taxpayers of San
Francisco would be likely to be cilled on to pay
fabulous amount Sllch were in the main his
reasons Tor opposing the bill
Dir. Lone declared that the bill was simply an en-
aiding Act so that contractors could bring suit and
ascertain whether or not they could recover their
Just dues. He was accordingly in favor of the pas.
sage OF the bill, and adverse to the molten to strike
out the en2cting clause made by Mr.. Lewis.
The roll was then called, and the motion to strike
out was lost-ayes %, noes Il.
Mr.. REYHoLDs moved to refer the bill to special
committee, with instructions to amend by inserting
at the end Of line 30, Section l, the words "pro,
vded further that the amount of recovery shall in
no case exceed what the work done was reasonably
WORTH
Mr.. GILMORE was adverse to the amendment
Mr.. EDWARDS favored it, saying that no honest
contractor could object to it.
Mr. BAKER OF Yolo doubted whether such an
amendment would not introduce into the bill an
element OF uncertainty, as by its introduction the
Courts would hardly know the intent OF the Legisla-
ture Ii such were not the case, he. would like to
vote for the amendment.
Mr.. REYNOLDS argued for the adoption of his mo-
ton.
Mr.. McMUsRAY did not believe in the merits of
the amendment.
Mr.. WHIPPLE argued against the BILL asserting
that it was unconstitutional in its character and
attempt to remove the bar Of the statute of mita-
tons. Contractors after having their day in Court
ard failing TO take advantage OF it. had now no
claim to appeal TO the Legislature for correction
of their errors of judgment.
Mr.. JACKSON said if the bill unconstitutional,
etc, as had been claimed, he unable to see who
would be harmed by its passage.
Mr.. GILMORE claimed that his bill was net drawn
in the interests Of bogus claimants had been
serted, but in spirit of equity and justice for the
benefit of contractors whose claims were well based.
The amendment was defeated, and the bill was
then finally passed by the following vote:
Ayes Arick, Baker of Sacramento, Baker of Yolo,
Birney, Bost, Brown Chandler, Crunpton, Dasgett,
EsteY, Fraser, Freer, Clarity, Gsvgan, Geary, Gil
more Griffith Hale, Hendricks, Holden, Howard,
Jackson, Heating, Kellogg Kilburn, Lane Long
Mason, Medallion, Mcdonald, MeMurray, Mein,
Mudgett O'Connor, Paterson Of Nevada, Patterson
OF San joaquin, Reddick, Sargent Swift Van Fleet,
Warkins, WATSON of Mono, Wood, Young, Mr..
Speaker-44.
Noes-Alviso Burns. Cannon. Coleman, Crank.
Cunningham, Del Vale, Edwards, FELTON,, Gay,
Harrison, Hinshaw, Hoitt, Jones, Leach, Leake,
Lewis, Matthews Of San Benito, May, Mcclure,
Paulk, Pinder, Plat, REYNOLDS, Samues, Sebe,
Streeter, WATSON OF Ventura, Wentz, Wertsbaugher,
Whipple-31
Absent-Branch, Mathews of Tehama, Murphy
and Noonan
S. c. R. "a, relating to the pardoning OF the
Mussel Slough settlers, next considered, on
ton OF Mr.. MCCLURE, read and unanimously adopted
resolution by Mr.. PAULK, changing the order OF
business, was read and referred to the Committee
on Rules.
The reading OF bills was resumed.
A. B. %, to provide system Of drainage for agri-
cultural lands, was read the second time.
AT 4;50 the Assembly adjourned.