The record-union., 1891-02-13

y large number ofSpectators had gather
ed, as it was understood that the great
battle of the fire campaign would be
fought over Mr.. Bert's substitute for Mr..
Dalys bill, No. ia, providing for the
appointment of a Board OF Fire Com
nlissioners.
SPECIAL ORDERS.
The Speaker called the House to order,
and announced that under the above head
the Assembly would consider A. b. ia,
a substitute for which had been offered
by Mr.. Bert, and was now pending.
Mr.. Bert rose to explain that after listen
ing to the gentleman from San Francisco
the evening before, he had become satisfied
that several OF the provisions of the sub
stitute were unsatisfactory to the people
OF San Francisco, and after consultation
with the gentlemen now here, he had pre-
pared several important amendments
which. he claimed, were perfectly salts
factory TO Mayor Sanderson and those
Supervisors and other gentlemen who
had come from there and which he
wished to present. These amendments,
modifying the bill so as to cause four of
the commissioners to be appointed by the
Governor, with the advice and consent
Of the Board of Supervisors, Common
Council or other governing body" and
provide that all vacancies shall be filled
by the Governor, with the same advice
and consent: also that any commissioner
may be removed for neglect of
duty, etc.; also that the claims for
expenses of the fire department.
instead of being audited by the
board. shall, after being passed upon and
allowed by them, be audited by the
Supervisors and paid by them; also, the
clause relating to the election of one of
the board as President is stricken out, as
is the whole of Section II, relating to
granting of permits to build.
The Speaker instructed Mr.. Bert that
his amendments must be made through a
motion to recommit the substitute to
select committee of one for amendment
Mr.. Bert so moved, the question was
put, and it was on this motion that the
debate ensued.
Mr.. Dibble opposed the amending of
the BILL according to the substitute Of
fered by Mr.. Bert. His objection was a
radical and fundamental one, and goes
down TO the very conStitutionality of the
bill proposed by Mr.. Bert. He believed
this subject one of the most mementous
that has been presented to any Assembly.
The public interest is general. The real
question, and one not to be evaded, is
this: VIII this Legislature take from the
people of San Francisco the right to ad-
minister their own municipal affairs?
MIR. Dibble said he cared not for any de-
tails arranged between members and gem
tlemen from the city. 1t is the flnda-
mental meaning of the bill with which
this body has to deal. As matter of fact
Mr. Bert was in error in saying that the
Mayor and Board of Supervisors of San
Francisco We're agreed upon the amend
ments introduced, but no matter if they
were. This bill, esaid, is fundamentally
unconstitutional and against the letter as
well as the law of the State OF California.
We. as legislators. are serving under a
constitutional government. Every one
of us stepped to the book and took sol
emn oath to support and obey the Consti-
tuition of the State, and we cannot in
honor vote for q bill which is radically
opposed to it.
Mr.. Dibble then read extracts from
Article XI. of the Constitution, in which
are grouped the provisions relating to the
right of self-government OF the people of
the State. The gentleman went through
section after section, pointing out how
they provide throughout for the manage
ment of local affairs by the people and
explicitly take from the Legislature all
power over municipal matters He
dwelt particularly upon Section Is, which
states that the Legislature shall not dele
gate to any special commission. private
corporation or individual any power to
interfere in the affairs of counties, cities