Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1884-04-26
THE LEGISLATURE.
SENATE.
friday, April 25th.

FRIDAY, April 25th
The Senate met at 10 a. NJ, Lieutenant-Gov-
ernor Daggett in the chair. Roll called and
quorum present. Journal of Thursday read and
approved e.
Reddy presented set of resolutions fiom the
Democratic County Committee of Alameda, ask
ing for the passage of the Barry bill and the re-
moval of MessrS. Carpenter ana humphreys
from the Railroad Commission.
Mcclure moved that the resolution be referred
TO the Alameda delegation.
Cross moved that the document be stricken
from the file. -
The Chair ruled that it was not petition, but
merely the expression of a political body Inc
motion of Mcclure was then carried
Cross introduced bill TO prevent any ollicer
from entering into any stipulation, III cases III
which the State may be party, that Woulu
waive any rights of the state. Referred TO the
Judiciary Committee. c,.,,.
Assembly Bill No. 4l-concerning the fundlnS
of county indebtednesS-was passed on the me
and referred t0the Judiciary committee.
The senate then proceeded with the consider
alton of Assembly Bill No. 10 the Barry pm
Reddv opposed the amendment OF the judi
ciary Committee in the first section, which pro
yides against discrimination as TO frelgnt OF the
same kind or class from the same STATION, ana
in the same direction
Cross thought the amendment an important
one and believed the bill should be considered
dispassionately, and solely in the interests OF
the people. such should be his aim in consid-
fring the bill and the several amendments made
nv the committee He discussed the amend
ment under consideration from constitutional
standpoint and read from Section q OF Article
XII of the Constitution to prove that II was IN
perfect harmony with that instrument 1t was
plain that Il carload of lead and one Of brooms
could not be shipped on the same terms. Mr..
Cross referred to the testimony of the several
witnesses relative to discrimination as TO classes
of freight and argued at length that such dis
only blp and
ness-like but absolutely necessary. He desired
10 make the Barry bill reap good 10 every man,
woman and child in the State. Some roads car
ried most of their freight in one direction, ana
was in NOT right and proper to allow them to
carry certain classes of freight in the other d.
rection at low rates, rather than go back
empty? Ships were often oplged 10 pflnS
cargOes of coal hither at less than the
cost of handling, i'll order to secure pay
inc load of wheat to take hence Mr..
Cross inStanced number of cases OF similar
character, to show that such was tne common
custom of transportation lines rendered neceS-
sary by the eXigencies of business. Ii the bill
were passed without amendment some INJURY
might be inflicted upon the railroad companies,
but the greatest injury would be done to the
State TO the small merchants and the several IN
dustrics that were now being encouraged to de-
yelOp the resources of the coast. J. V. Webster,
n prominent agriculturiSt and Secretary of the
State Grange, had testified that there should be
discrimination between classes of freight, and
50 had every other intelligent witness testliled.
What should Senators base their action upon
The evidence and views of the most prominent
producers shippers. merchants and others of
the State or sets of resolutions adopted by eight
or ten men somewhere who had never read the
Barry bill. or never reflected upon it and taken
into consideration its effects?
johnson agreed with senator Cross that the
Constitution does not expressly permit discrlm-
ination as between classes of freight, but it does
prohibit discrimination between persons, and 1t
must be taken as we find it. The duty of the
j. -
Constitution. whatever they may be, and a
higher tribunal must pass upon them.
johnson moved to strike out from the same
station and in the same direction"
Mcclure raised the point of order that the
amendment could not be divided.
johnson temporarily withdrew his amend
ment.
Sullivan discussed the committee amend
ment. claiming that it was against theletter and
spirit of the Constitution and would only per
petuate railroad abuses. He could foresee the
time, should such an amendment be adopted,
when the people would take the law into their
own hands and tear up the railroad tracks ana
depOts.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
On reassembling. the Senate resumed consid-
Grafton of the Barry bill, and Reddy took the
floor and spoke at length against the committee
amendment above referred TO- His speech con-
sisted of general denunciation Of the alleged
customs of the railroad companies relative TO
the matter of freight transportation. He charged
foul SANDER against his tReddy's) constituents
in saying that people do not understand nor APP
preciate the full scope of the Barry bill. He
was proceeding to criticiSe the action of the
Senator from Nevada while in the Democratic
State Convention, when he was called to order
by the Chair.
At this point quite Il discussion ensued be
tween Senator Reddy and the Chair, the latter
insisting that the course of any Senator outside
the Senate chamber was not proper subject OF
discussion or debate while the bill was under
consideration Reddy went on to explain his
position, and after some minutes asked the in
diligence of Il resting spell.
Cross moved that the Senate take recess for
Ten minutes in Difference to the Senators re-
quest. So ordered.
After recess Reddy continued his speech, and
discussed the amendment and the bill (aS well
as many other matters until 4 o clock
At the conclusion of his speech Cross took the
floor, and argued the perfect cOnstltutionalty of
the amendment providing for the classification
Of freightS for the purpose of fixing rates of
transportation. He claimed that every amend
ment made by the committee was in exact ac-
cOrdance with the platform of the Democratic
party OF the state. 1t was said by Senator Il
few hours before that if the Barry bill were not
passed the State would be visited by all sorts of
calamities-by fire and food and all sorts of
terrible things. II mat were so, he for one was
ready for little of IL. For the first time in his
life he had known legislator 10 openly suggest
mob violence.
sullivan said the remark applied to himself
Eutn MODS Ad0 occurred III OliltI states, ana
they were possible in certain contingencies.
johnson renewed his former motion to strike
out the words "from the same station and in
the same direction
Kellogg author of the committee amend
ments) quoted from the Penal Code to show
that the whole amendment was in exact ac-
cOrdance with the provisions of the law pro
hibitiug eXtOrtiOn 10y railroad companies. He
would 80 far as any senator TO enact bill
against unjust discrimination that would be
binding; but the bill, as it passed the Assembly,
was an utter abSurdity, and required intelligent
amendment TO make il at all efficient and
reasonable. Some sort of discrimination is
necessary. but unjust discrimination should be
prohibited
Pitcher said that the abuses complained of
had been uracticed under the provisions of the
now after that law and enact anew and stronger
one.
Spencer. Of Napa claimed that the Consti-
tuition did expressly prohibit discrimination be
tween persons and places Therefore he believed
the proposed amendment unconstitutional The
sentiment Of the people demanded that there
should bee no discrimination, hence the incOr-
pOratiOn of that idea into the Constitution. He
argued Al some length 70 prove that the amend
meut was Inconsistent with the fundamental
law. Being unconstitutional, he apprehended
no serious trouble arising ONT of the enactment,
but he was opposed 10 il because of Its possible
effect on the public mind and in influencing the
action of the Railroad Commission. The pro
vision quoted from the Penal Code had been
nullifed by the subsequent adoption of the Con
stitutiou.
Cox spoke in favor of the committee amend
mcut He claimed 90 be only plain business
man and believed that by voting in favor of the
amendment he would bc carrying ont the wishes
Of his constituents and OF the people OF the state
Taylor said he had favored the amendment in
the committee and would still support it. He
believed the people did not demand the kind of
legislation contemplated by the original bill,
aud he did not believe that in voting for the
amendment he would be betraylng the conf