Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1886-08-20

shall net be impaired, and That nothing in this
SECTION shall be construed TO impair any vested
ghts,
Section ?. AL Acts and parts of Acts in con-
fiict with this Act are hereby repealed.
Section ,. This Act shall take effect from
and after its passage.
AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION.
Mcclure moved to suspend the rules and
take up out of order Assembly Concurrent
Resolution No. Z, amending Article ". of the
Constitution relative TO the construction of
bitches AID canals. 1t adds 20 Section % of
Article ". the followingl:
But nothing in this section shall prevent the
Legislature from passing local or special laws
regulating the diversion, distribution and use
of water for irrigation or mining purposes, and
the construction of canals bitches and other
works therefor, as the same may be specially
required. IN any county or. district created by
law for that purpose.
Del Vale made strong appeal in behalf OF
the proposed amendment. He claimed that ii
there are some counties not interested in irriga-
ton. those counties should. not deny to others
in which the issue is n burning ore-the right
20 regulate the matter in their own Way
spencer commended that the effect of the
amendment would be to so back TO the old sys-
TEN of special legislation. and was not in accord
with the spirit of the day
Mcclure wanted to know what could be the
danger OF submitting constitutional amend
ment TO the people on the subject of the use OF
water. In his opinion il was the only fair and
proper thing to DO. Why come back here next
January and go all over this discussion, when
the people can settle the question themselveslat
the coming election? What objection to allow
ing the whole people of the State to say whether
or not the Legislature shall have authority 10
legislate specially on this water question?
Chandler thought the Constitution too restric-
tive. As an upholder of vested rights he was
in favor of allowing each county or section OF
the State to vote on this question according to
their own interests. and would favor the consid-
Grafton of this subject.
Taylor opposed the taking up of the proposed
amendment. He was against the present Con-
Stitution. because it prohibited special legisla-
ton: still he could rot favor special legislation
on special subjects only.
Spencer renewed his opposition to special
legislation, which he said had nearly ruined
the State.
Knight spoke against taking up the bill out of
order i'll preference to Senate bills on the file.
The Senate declined to take up the bill by the
following vote
Ayes Baldwin, Chandler. Cross, Del Vale,
belong, Filcher, Hurlburt, johnson of San Ber-
nardino, Johnson, of Sonoma Kellogg, Lowe,
Mailer, Mcclure, Parkinson, Reddy, Reuter-,
Steele, Wright-l7.
Nocs-Boone. Cox, Creighton, Days, Dough-
efty, Drumm, Kelly. Knight, Langford, Lynch,
Palmeiri, Parker, Perry. SAKE, Spencer, Taylor,
Wallis-1S. { 4 two-thirds vote being required
to pass constitutional amendment.l
FINAL ADJOURNMENT.
Assembly concurrent resolution, providing for
adjournment from to-day until september It'll,
was taken up.
Cross offered a substitute providing that the
Legislature adjourn sine die at l. NJ. on Friday,
August 2Oth.
The roll was called, and all the Senators voted
i'll the affirmative except Baldwin, Langford
and Wright
At 435 the Senate adjourned Till Friday, at
Il A. VI.