The record-union., 1893-02-18
JACOBS OF YOLO
MADE A GREAT FIGHT FOR HIS
PET BILL,
But the Committee on Swamp and
Overlooked Land Was Not Con-
yinced, and ''Sat Upon Him.

The Assembly Committee on Public
swamp and Overtlowed Land met last
night and considered Assembly Bill No.
100, which is an Act TO amend Section 34Sl
ofihe Political Code. 1t provides for set
ting Off swamp land districts upon a two
third vote of the people forming the same,
and creates the machinery by which they
may be run.
Judge Armstrong of Sacramento spok G
for the bill before the committee, and said
he thought the amendment contained in
the bill was all that was necessary to form
and push to completion any swamp land
district, and was all that was required to
bring prosperity to such districts.
Upon motion of Mr. Jacobs of Yolo, the
bill was reported back with the recon-
mendation that it do pass.
Then came the battle of the session.
when Mr.. Jacobs called up and spoke for
a favorable report upon Assembly Bill
No. 205.
The bill was introduced by Mr.. Ander-
! son, and is commonly known as the Nc
hune bill, and is an Act to amend the
Political Code in relation to the reclama-
ton OF swamp and overfiowed and other
lands, and TO provide for works of drain
age and reclamation too extensive TO be
constructed by reclamation districts or
ganlzeu under another section Of the
code.
The opposition to the bill was based
upon the action already taken by the
committee on Assembly Bill No. 595. by
Anderson, which provides for the organ
lZatlon and government of drainage dis
trIcls, for the levy, equalization and col
lection OF assessments therein, for the
construction and maintenance of canals
and other drainage works, to secure the
lands of such district from overflow. and
conferring powers and imposing duties
/ upon the State Board of Public Works in
relation to such districts.
The bill, it was coutended, was in di-
rect opposition to the one under con-
( slderation, in that IL provided for the
appointment OF board of directors,
Which the one under discussion did not.
and that it provided for a bonded indebt-
edneSs, which the other did not. TO re-
port the blII back with favorable in
dorsement, would, it was argued, conflict
with the former action of the committee.
and impede legislation when returned
TO the House.
Mr.. Jacobs said he had consulted a
number of the best lawyers in the State
regarding the bill, and they assured him
that the measure was not only the best
but the cheapest system under which to
organize drainage districts. His bill, he
declared, dld not require a Board of
Public W orhS 10 take care of the districts
and he believed 1t was better than any
other. He asked that the bill be al
lowed to go back to the House with an
Endorsement favorable to passage. and
that its friends be allowed to fight its bat
tie there.
Judge Rose, who is an extensive land
owner in the proposed district, claimed
the bull was lncongruous and could not
possibly effect a general system of
reclamation. He thought it would not be
wise on the part of the committee to re-
port favorably bill which conficted
with measure already recommended by
it. 1t would, he thought, be folly to
recommend both, and should snch an
action be taken the bills would be re-
turned practically without action. He
thought the bill should be killed by the
committee.
Mr.. Jacobs declared it was not his in
tention TO clog the wheels of legislation.
but that he did insist upon having fair
shake for the bill, and upon placing it be-
fore the House with the same chance for
success as the other bills on the same sub
ject.
The committee refused to report the bill
favorable to passage, and Mr.. Jacobs then
demanded that it be sent back without
recommendation, so that he might fight
for it, even though he was placed at dis
advantage. In Difference to him. the
committee reported the bill back accord
ingly.