The record-union., 1891-02-13


positively, gentlemen, in your legislation
here''
Another point made by Mr.. Dibble was
that the proposed substitute manifestly
applies only 10 San Francisco. and that
special enactment for any city is forbid
den by the Constitution. He had the
greatest respect and admiration for the
present Governor, Mr.. Markham, but he
did not believe that was any reason why
he should engage in unconstitutional Leg
lslatlon, and he should oppose any bill
calculated to take away any rights from
the people. The speaker was frequently
greeted with applause.
Mr.. Murphy rose in defense of the sub
stitute and of Mr.. Bert's motion. He
declared that the last speaker was not
consistent. and that, in the case Of the
electric railway bill he had not shown
confidence in the Board OF Supervisors of
San Francisco. Mr.. Murphy declared
that under the rule of Buckley the fire
department had been used as political
tool. and rather than have it in the power
OF any future boss to use it in the same
way, he would place the appointing
power with Governor II. II. Mark ham
that he would rather see the power there
than i'll the hands Of the Supervisors of
san Francisco.
Mir. Bruner desired to speak calmly
and diSpassionately. No administration
titSCl ' % b1e McIl-N iSilGS Oh lEe people
better than this one. No one honors
Governor Markham more than he But
he was opposed TO placing the appointing
power with the Governor for three valid,
sound reasons, viz: Because it is uncon-
stitut!on;d; because it is bad policy,
and because it is against principle
The question is far-reaching and vital in
Importance. Shall we take away from
every city. and town in the State its right
OF selt-government? For, if we may take
it from a city OF "a, 900 0inhabitantslwe may
take it from one or 600. Mr.. Brunar also
quoted from the Constitution in support
of his position, making a point against
the vesting of power in an appointed
commission from the central govern
ment. He asked: rs it necessary to go
any further when the law stares the law
makers in the face, and the oaths they
took should make them vote against this
bill?''
Mr.. Bruner also made point upon the
danger of centralizations of power. He
quoted De Tocqueville, who said: 1.-THE
danger to America and the rock upon
which she will wreck is centr:ilization,u -
"and," said Mr.. Bruner Eve are here to-
day consulting as to whether we shall not
contribute to that very end" He be-
heved. also, that San Francisco could be
trusted to purify her own politics. He
did not believe that the brave boys
who saved the peoples homes from
midnight destruction should be denied
all part in politics.
Mr.. Bledsoe had at first favored the bill
but now believed it unconstitutional and
desired to offer an amendment making
the offices of commissioners elective.
This was not in order and Mr.. Bledsoe
postponed his motion.
Mr.. Clark spoke in behalf of giving the
appointment to the Governor. and
a. hot 0,1T,,
by people outside the city should be pro-
tected. He also claimed that the fight
was really made by Democrats.
Mr.. Phillips spoke against the substi-
tute and its amendments, saying that
they mean nothing.
Mr.. G2lbraith spoke earnestly in favor
OF San franciSco's right to govern itself
Mir. Shanahan' believed the bill uncon-
stitutional, and did not believe in making
the people of any city the wards of the
State Government as this would do. On
the grounds of unconstitutionality, pub
he policy and principle he opposed the
bill.
Mr.. Matlock made an address in oppo-
sition to the spirit of the substitute, de-
preGating bossism under any name
Mr.. Gould yielded to no one his admira-
ton for Governor Markh ham and. while
he might be contented to let the appoint
ment rest with him, still Mr.. Markham
mas not life lease on the office of Gov
ernor, nor a guarantee of immortality,
and future official might not be trust
worthy.
Mr.. Brusie, Mr.. Martin and Mr.. Mat
thews spoke briefly but earnestly against
the substitute. Mr.. Robertson spoke in
favor of it at some length
Mr.. Bert closed the debate with q brief
address. the roll was called and the
motion lost by the following vote:
Ayes-Ames, J. d. Barnett, Beecher.
Bert, Brown, Bryant, Cargill, Carter.
Clark, Cram, Culver, Dennis, Dunn,
Burner, Estey, Freeman, Gordon, Har-
loe, Hawley, Hooking, Hunewill, Lacey,
Lewis, Lynch, Marion, Murphy, Robert
son, A. G. Smith, j. J. Smith, Stabler,
Sturtevant-3l.
T. Barnett, Baughman, Bledsoe, Bruner,
Brusie, Coffey, DAILY. Dibble, Dow, Gal
braith, Carver, Glynn, Gould, Hail,
Hoey, Jackson, johnson, Jones, Kellogg,
Lowe. Lux, Martin, Mathews, Matlock,
Mordecai, Murnan, Phillips, Renfro,
Rice, Shanahan, Steltz, Tennis, Tully,
Windrow, Young, Mr.. Speaker-4G.
Mr.. Arms gave notice of motion to re-
consider.
Mr.. Dibble moved to indefinitely post
pone reconsideration. Carried.
Mr.. Bledsoe presented his amendment.
Pending its consideration the House took
a recess till 7:30 z. NJ.