Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1885-03-03

on the simple question as to whether OF rot Los
/ Angeles shall be represented in the Senate by
| Mr.. Hazard. The repeal OF the present law was
| asked SO that good order may prevail III the
election and seating of memkers OF the next
| Legislature. The Constitution says that the
terms of Senators shall be four years. ana IL Is
not in the province of this Legislature. nor was
it in the province of the last one, 10 aitef mat
! time The Legislature of 1852 made q mistake,
in the opinions of large number OF tile leading
lawyers of the State, who were consulted Ill re-
gard to the matter but one OF thse so consulted
| having taken different view OF lhe question:
The Democrats who were responsible for the
| blunder saw their mistake, and went before
| the Supreme Court, which nullliied Their action
| and ordered the election OF senators from the
| odd-numbered districts i'll 1854 Ii the present
| Law be retained, those Senators elected from
| the odG-numbered districts next year viii be
demanding admission to the next Legislature.
What will be the result? If the Executive
should call an election for forty Senators,
twenty of the seats will be contested by the Sen
ators elected last year. II the Assembly should
be of the same political complexion rs to-day
it win recognize these twenty hold-orerS and
the Republicans will elect United States Sen
ator, despite what the Executive may do or
want to have done. II is not really question
of apportionment at this time; il j. not simply
a question as to whether Los Angeles or some
other county may have tGo many too few
representatives. The question is, shall we avoid
trouble in the future? The press had stated
that he voted against apportion1nent in 1881,
and it was on this general statement. he sup
t'o~ ti.''' ~ e'S-t' ~ @ '''tN.
based his untnnely ana lil-consldere' i;Ilega,
ton that he tthc speaker had opposed and
voted in 1881 against apportionipg The state.
The statement was not true III any particular.
ne Legislature iaileq IN lSo! % pas an APpor-
tionment Act and failed SgaIn III leSi IN pas
constitutional one. The bill under coIs.dera-
tion Is intended to AVOID all trouble that might
arse under the conMct OF authority between
the Colst luton ana the Ia" now IN iOrte. aud
place Us back where we should land ut the
present time under the provisions OF the Con
a,itution, if no AppoItionment ct were IN force.
Munday hadshOped the question before the
House would not assume polite complexion,
but politics had been dragged into the discus
sion. He was perfectly willing 20 have the
Democrats take their chances next year in
electing and seating forty Senators. He b.
lieved the Supreme Court had inGica ed Il safe
course when it declared that the result of he
election OF 1851 would be to shorten t:ie terms of
Senators from the cdd-numbered districts two
years. The Democratic apporti0nment of 1885
did not result 20 the gain OF that party Us Shown
by the sixty Republicans in this Assembly to
the twenty De1aocr1t Neither have they
gained in the Senate as shown by the result Of
the last election. lie hoped the House would
follow in the f6otsters Of the Supreme Court.
Il not he wanted the Republicans to take upon
themselves the responsibility
The roll was called and the motion to recon-
slider was lost by a vote of is aves to D; noes
Coleman offered resolution allowing SEQ to