Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1885-03-14

.
i Senators named adhered to their own
Judgment.
The idea had been promulgated that the
railroad companies were opposed to irriga-
ton bills and plans, and that these Ben
ators were the subservient agents Of the
railroads Nothing could be more false
than that the railroad corporations we're
opposing plans for the development of the
country, and the Senators named could
have afforded to bear the calumny show
cred upon them, and, for the sake Of the
irrigation interests at stake, have insisted
upon their point regarding the danger to
the bills, and have crushed their SANDER
ers later.
On the21st of February Assembly Bill
Nc. 40 was received in the Senate and
referred to the Committee of the Whole.
On the Goth Of February the Committee
Of the Whole reported back the bills, ad-
vising that they should not pass,
Assembly Bill No. 410 and other
irrigation bills were considered in
Committee of the Whole each day from
February 10th to the ID of March, when
the committee reported all the bills to the
Senate, but declined to make any recon-
mendation. In this lot was an Assembly
constitutional amendment (No. 81, which
it was claimed by the irrigators was ono
of the most important bills in their inter
est, and Of all others should pass. Under
the Senate rules this proposition belonged
upon special file but it was placed upon the
general file and was No. 2l9 upon that file
instead of No. 70 on the special file, as it
should have been. Had Senators Reddy
and Del Vale and other shining lights
who were the ostenSible advocates of irri-
CATION interests, and the pronounced
friends Of the Stockton Democracy,
been true to the measure, they would GER
tainly have seen to it that it had the favor
able place that was its due upon the files.
Il is fact, that it is impossible for them
to deny, that the measure was allowed to
finger upon the general file for four days
before an attempt was made to place it
upon the special file. The inquiry is
pertinent, "Was this neglect purpoeeful,
in order to force the irrigation question
into the next campaign and give such as
Reddy, Del Vale, and others Of that fol-
lowing new opportunity to pose as the
friends Of the people?" We know, at
least we believe, that the irrigator5 COM
mittees were sincere, earnest, and not
parties to any purposeful delay. But we
also believe that MessTs. Green, Shorb,
Hudnut and their colleagues were in I'M
fortunate hands, and had reason
to pray for deliversnce from their
friends. The Senate was especially dill
gent on March 18th, and disposed OF numer-
Gus bills. The constitutional amendment
referred to, had it been properly placed,
would have been II on the file on March
9th, instead Of which it was No. 50.
Now, let us suppose the friends of the
bill had labored to take it up, and had in
sisted that it be placed upon the special
file, to which rank it was entitled, it will
be seen that it would bave been reached
and read for the first time March 5th. and
for the second March 9th, and for the third
March 9TH. But what does the his
tory of the measure disclose? That
its putative friends ~ never asked
to have it placed in its right
ful position upon the file until the Sth day
Of March, when it was first read. 1t be-
came No. on the second reading file of
March 9th. Here, then, we find that this
important bill was doomed to execution
upon the general file, for its four days of
probation there was purgatorial bar no
priestly Offices could remove, and worked
its final destruction. The history we thus
quote justi6es the charge that Del Vale,
Reddy & Co. were not at all concerned re-
garding a measure that their constituents
were most concerned about. Can it be
that the charge is true, that these Senators
had purpose in view Of greater political
Importance according to their estimate ?
We find that on March 18th Senator Kel-
logg moved the following resolution:
ResolVed That the Secretary of the Senate be
and he is hereby Instructed that in making up
the files for tomorrow, March 9Th. he place the
Assembly bills FIST upon the files leaving ali
Senate bills, whether upon the third, second or
first reading file, below all Assembly bills and
that only Assembly bills shall be considered in
their order on the file during the session on said
5th of March; provided. that whenever an As
sembly bill relates to the same subject matter
as a Senate bill. the Assembly bill may be sub
sltuted on the file for the Senate bill OF the same
reading.
The resolution was adopted BY it AS
sernbly Bill No. 410, which was No. 2l0
on the file Of March 4th, became No. 70
on the file of March 9th. We next find
that on the 9th Senator Vrooman moved
the adoption Of the same resolution as to
the making up of the file for March 9th,
and the resolution was adopted, and under
it Assembly Bill No. 40 appeared on the
file of March 9th as No SO. Senator
Frooman, Just previous to the adjournment
Of the Senate on March 9th, made per-
sistent effort to have large number of
bills considered under the urgency clause,
the provisions of the Constitution that
bills shall be read upon three several
days suspended, and that the bills be
considered as read the first and second
time and placed upon the third reading
file. Suppose that in this he had been
successful; mass of bills blocking the
way of Assembly Bill No. 40 would
have been disposed of. But Senator
Del Vale, who Of all others of the
upper house has posed as the injured limo
cence OF Democracy and the self-constituted