The record-union., 1891-02-14

reason OF being unacqualnted and unable
to secure a disinterested trial.
Mr.. Bruner said he had hoped this bill
would not be passed at this term, but as it
had been brought up. he felt compelled
To explain il thoroughly. He claimed it
to be a bill directly in the interest of hy-
draulic mining, and calculated to reopen
the whole struggle which had already cost
so much legislation. litigation and ex-
penSe. The National Government had
| sent commission to California to investi-
gate the rivers, and had already filed a
report recommending the appropriation
by Congress of $4,000 for the improve
ment of the Sacramento, Yuba and
Feather Rivers, which viii doubtless go
through during the present session of
congress, unless some unfortunate acci-
dent comes up tokill it. He claimed that
II word goes back to Washington that
this bill has been passed by this Legisla-
ture it will defeat this measure.
Mr.. Clark also claimed that the passage
OF the bill meant the reopening of the
hydraulic mines
Mr.. Bledsoe said that both the gentle
men misunderstood the bill This bill
does not reach the hydraulic mining
question at all. It simply means that in
case of Il suit between two counties it
shall not be tried IN an interested county,
but in one where both prrties can have
justice. He could NOT see how It's passage
could possibly prejudice Congress against
an appropriation for the Improvement of
the three rivers.
Mr. Matlock thought when this bill was
before the Judiciary Committee that there
was an element of justice in it which
ought to be accorded to every citizen in
California. 1t assures every citizen in
case OF suit fair and impartial trial be-
! lore an unprejudiced court and county,
Mir. Doty urged strongly that this bill
| would reopen the hydraulic mines. The
valley mon realize that they are at the
| mercy OF the monitors in the mountains.
IF the latter are allowed to run it won't
mako any difference what county has
jurisdiction-they' cover as up.''
Mr. freeman spoke in favor of the bill.
Mr.. Galbraith, as q member from
county not in danger from either side Of
the issue, could speak Of the bill without
bias. 1t seemed fair. Valley men are
not compelled to go to mining counties,
but may go to another valley county for
the suit.
| Mr.. Hooking and DR.. Martin spoke in
/ favor OF the bill.
E!r. Dibble spoke of its legal aspect and
| thought it fair to ali the people of the
State.
/ Mir. Stabler and others spoke against
| the bill
On its final passage the bill was adopted
! by the following vote:
| Ayes-Alexander, AmeS. Arms, Bar
.nard, Barnett of San Francisco, Baugh-
man, Beecher, Bledsoe, Cargiil, Carter,
Coifey, Cram, Culver, Daily, Dennis, Dib-
bic, Dow, burner, Freeman, Galbraith,
! Carver, Glynn, Gordon, Gould, Hail,
! Harl0e, Hawley, Hayes, Herscy, Hook
! ing, Hoey, Hunewill, Jackson, Johnson,
| Jones, Kellogg, Lacey, Lewis, Lowe,
| Lux, Lynch, Martin, Mathews, MatloclS,
| Murnan, Phillips, Rice, Robertson. Shan
ahan, Smith of Butte. smith OF Orange,
! Steltz. iSturtevant, Tennin, fully, Wes-
ton, Windr3w, Young, Mr.. Speaker-60
Noes-Barnett OF Sonoma, Bruner,
| Brusie, Clark, Cunningham, Doty, Estey,
Mordecai, Renfro, Stabler-9.
| Mr.. Clark gave notice of motion to re-
consider.
Mr.. Dibble moved the rest of to-day
and Saturday morning should be devoted
to the second reading file, and Saturday
afternoon to the first reading file. Car
ried.
The House took recess till . O'Clock
p. NJ.