Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1883-02-09

in good faith turn around and say we [
will tax this railroad. because have declared !
from under State control. We can not turn around
and call upon the Railroad Commissioners to fix /
rates Of reghts and fares upon the raj roads in this
State, because by resolution we have declared that
the State has lost It's jurisdiction and control
its property. l. sir, am not ready TO subscribe TO
such proposition / believe thst the old law Of
common carriers is still in force, that whoever
dertakes to carry passengers and freghts for hire it
is subject to the rights of the State aud under ITS
control Ibeisve that could not give up that right
| if we would. Why, sir, man who drives hack in
the city of Sacramento is liable to have the rates
| fixed by the city authorities OF Sacramento, and
whoever carries freight passengers in the State of
California Is sbe TO have the rates Of freghts and
fares fixed by the proper tribunal IN the State Oh
California /, sir citizen, or as n representa-
tive, or q Democrat, WI never subscribe to tue
doctrine that that right be surrendered by the
/ State or by any tribunal, even taken away from
the State Sir there is not in the State or outside
OF the State in all the world, power enough 80 de-
pve the State OF the power ID fix regh;s and fares
and levy upon any business of common carriers
within the State And there is another proposition
in this connection, and it is this: that there moth
ing which the State OF Cafo MIA to-day more needs
than facilities Of cheap transportation from here to
the Guf of Mexico; from here to the Mississippi
| river ard from here to the Atlantic ocean. The
/ Southern Pacific Railroad is trying to make such
arrangements that it can carry the wheat crop and
| the wine produce of the State OF California to the
Atlantic sesboard cheaper than it be done
| by sea or across the Isthmus. And this,
| sir-as l understand the matter-is one step,
| one movement in accomplishing that purpose
Now, sir, as one who believes that prosperity
and our common interests depend in a large gree
upon cheap OF freghts for the transportation
OF wheat, and looking TO the fact that these con-
soidated lines carry the whest crops and the
produce Of this State to the Atlantic seaports at
cheaper rate than they now transport it, call
upon those who have right to vote upon this mat
ter to consider whether they place in ler way
a stumbling block. Put such restrictions and lin
/ tatons upen these attempted measures as you see
| fit, but if you place upon them restrictions |
which cripple your own interest, then you have |
| only to lie ia the bed which you yourselves have |
made. Sir, on account of my position in regard to
these matters it has been charged that am rail-
| road man. am not, sir. | am Californian, and |
am a representative in California, and respon.
sible to for the opinions hold, except to |
myself ard constituency and let the future |
! prove whether | am right or wrong | a railroad /
| man Have no record upon these questions /
Why, so antirairoad am that when lately ran for
the position OF tate Senator those interested in
those matters wrote tony constituency and told them
not to vote for me. 1t would not do. My sentiments
| upon this railroad question were too pronounced,
and was too antimonop0Y. But, sir, there is
difference between being an ,anti-railroad man and
being a man who is willing to subscribe to a false
| hood. / would rather be raj road man than q |
| truthless man. And however the cry OF Railroad |
or anti railroad may be rung in the ears OF come
and shake their best CONVICTIONS feel that cry and
listen to that cry and hear that cry, but If bow
| down to it and give up my convictions |
upon this question l than |
than the common coward and dotard. for they fer |
something without. believe, sir, that republican |
alone shou fear himself, and when he finds within
himself stern convictions to what is right
wrong that II he'will not heed them ii this voice |
of public clamor is louder than that he is not fit
representative; and the man who will yield to q /
C against his own conviction Is coward, |
and coward is fit to be representative OF great,
ehvalrous and great people like that OF the State |
| Of California. Shear this resolution of what |
1t contains that is false, ard l will vote |
| for it. But long as these fslsehoods |
remain in the resolution | cannot aud will rot 50 |
| vote
| Mr. Reddy-The reasons which have been put |
| forth by the gentleman from san Francisco NC |
Clurel and the gentIem IN from Nevada TCress may
| be perfectly satisfactory to them, and have no |
| doubt but that they but would like to ex- |
anime those for minute and see il cannot
shake them ttle-see if they are sound and then |
Will give my reasons voting in favor OF the reso-
luton. am aware that the question has been ably |
discussed the abb st attorneys of the State have
| appeared before the committee and argued this |
question at great length i'll the hearing OF the COM
mittee and perhaps most of the people here. 1t is
said that gentlemen here not going to jeopardze
their reputation because 1t asserts as 1t Is claimed,
that the Congress Of the United States has power to
form corporation OF this kind, and they are not |
willing TO go upon record asserting such legal |
| proposition. What would become OF the legal repu
| tat on OF the gentlemen who stood by and saw the |
| rights OF the State imperilled in this way? / &C
| knowledge it will be economical arrangement, |
but the parties to be benefited the railroad
pany and not the people of the State. The speaker
continued at LENGTH claiming that the State could |
not It's franchises be ause it would be no longer
in existence corporation Of this State and that
the interests Of the state would be very much al
| fected by the proposed consolidation.
Senator Kellogg insisted that the ate could not |
possibly lose the right of taxation ia the tangible
property Of the corporation within the State under
any circumstances and that the State has the right
to control the corporations. He said regards the
taxation Of franchises, that last year tine California
| Northern Railroad taxed on franchise SIG /; |
! the San Francisco and Northern Pacific, $92 $50 |
| the Nevada Narrow Gauge, So $50; the South Pa |
| eifc si5; the Santa Cruz Railroad, S2l ard the
| Southern Pacific for the year. Si37, 500. He
said he was in favor of taxing their property the
game as anybody else, but opposed to any es-
peciIl legislation in that regard as the property
should be assessed rpo1 the same valuation.
Mr. Del Vale strongly supported the resolution
He said the present bill rending in Congress was
dangerous one, and would injure the rights of this
st te by taking from the State the control of the
| corpora ion and the right OF taxation.
Mr. Spencer of Napa and Mr.. Johnson spoke In
advocacy Of the resolution, and Mr.. Vrooman IN OPP
position to il. The latter entered into long and
thorough consideration OF the subject showing that
the preamble not in accord with the facts and
presented st .tsticS in support OF his positi Il.
He gave the history Of cousolid ted lines OF rail
roads in other countries and gave IN quite Xende
i and conclusive detail the benefits to be derived by
this State from cheapeniug the rates OF fires aud
freiShts by lessening the costs of management.
/ Mr.. Mcclure, replying to points made in debate.
said: When opened this discussion this afternoon
| ] intended, in my humble way TO lsy down PROPOSE
tions that supposed were involved in this coutro-
versy propositions that were presented by the res
oution Itself. intended to speak to this PROPOSE
ton without any FEELINGS Of prejudice bias, and
it does seem t, me that we have had nothing in re-
ply from the Senators who favored the resolution
except bald assertions have had nothing but
passionate spleen They have talked all around the
| question, bur they have not stated single au-
thority met single question: in my judg-
| ment. The only Senator who did attempt
to meet the constitutional question: got away of of
the que ton. | wish to talk now practically but
before going into that question as it is suggested to
my mind | ask you now ss a practical question
question of policy-releye this resolution OF its
Objectionable points, whether or not it is best for
the interests OF the people OF this State that this bill
now pending in Congress should become law Z? !
The only Senator upon this floor who has attempted
to argue that question is the Senator from Alameda
| Mr. Vroomau. have not heard single Senator on |
| this floor except him, say thing about the pro- |
| ducts Of California. The rest talked about |
the people. II understand the Democratic party,
understand that they driving at the question
of fregbts and fares and they said, unjust dis
examinations between local points within the borders
| of the State understand the Republican platform |
in regard to that little better, but it seemed to
the whole proposition that the Central Pacific
Railroad, because it had no competing road in the
| State was unjustly discriminating between local
points. Or, if you want to go further, they were |
discriminating against through transportation but
we have not heard single word about any OF these
propositions The Senator from Mono (alr.
Red1D said if they sh uld consolidate
under the Act they would become, so
There can be no question about that. Why does the
Senator from Los Angeles, whose county, believe,
has been benefited by the railroad, work himself up
to such condition of excitement as to read TO US
this report Of a Missouri State Court2 Let us see
what the Supreme Court OF the Uni ed States says,
and will call tine Senator's attention to Is Wallace,
p. 80. l make this pTopo tion: That | am un-
willing to have the Legislature, with my consent, |
declare the face of the decisions of the Supreme
Court of the United States that the effect, if such
bill becomss law, would charge the Southern |
Pacific from a State to a tederal corpora.
ten and exempt the Southern Pacific |
Railroad from State control. voted to strike out
the preamble, but take the preamble away and You
have nothing but bald aud bare resolution Ii |
you simply want to tell Congress that you OPP |
posed to the BILL why did you oppose the striking |
out of the preamble? But would be opposed to it |
| even with it out. The Senator from Napi avs of |
course this is very important question and we |
have only had time to glimese at it. suppose |
VIII n he makes declaration here OF course it |
means something. l believe we have an
alyzed that bill / do not propose |
to vote for proposition and say tn !
have not analysed the bill, and at the same time /
say that the bill has that that effect. Now de-
sire to speak again to another proposition advanced
by the Senator from Mono The Senator made the |
very brave assertion proposition that were We
willing IN capacity iegsla ors, were we will
4