The record-union., 1893-02-09
RIVERSIDE COUNTY.
The Senate Gives a Heavy Vote II
Favor of Division.

The Senate Gives a Heavy Vote In
Favor of Division.
Senator Streeter's bill creating the new
county of Riverside came up for third
reading in the Senate as a special order
! yesterday afternoon.
AS was expected, the bill was passed
finally and sent to the Assembly by a
handsome vote.
Senator Seymour of San Bernardino
took the floor and delivered committed
! to-memory speech against the bill. He
spoke rather bitterly of those who had
been favoring division, and intimated
that somebody with ulterior motives was
paying the hotel bills of the divisionists.
He did not know whether the Southern
Pacific Company or the Chairman of the
| Republican State Central Committee were
behind the scheme. He could not under
stand why the press favored the bill,
! either.
| He wanted the Senate to go on iunket-
ing trip with him and see the proposed
new county before voting to take it from
San Bernardino and San Diego. The
new county was made up of the garden
| spots of the old counties-leaving the
| latter with only deserts. His excuse for
not going before the committees when
the bill was being considered was that he
considered the committees were over
worked, having thirteen or fourteen
| county division schemes before them.
| He pooh-poohed the arguments of the
Riverside people that days of travel to
a county seat was an inconvenience, and
wound up with an exhortation to the
! Senators not to pass the bill.
sTREETER REPLIES.
Senator Streeter, the author of the bill.
replied to Seymour. He apologized for
not being spouter, and proceeded in his
simple way. He referred to Seymour's
howl about a lobby being present to push
the Riverside bill through against the
wishes of the people of San Bernardino
County, and said it looked very strange
in the face of the fact that strong lobby
of pothouse politicians from San Bernar-
dino County had been present since the
beginning of the session trying to shove
the San Jacinto and San Antonio bills
through, both of which to take land from
San Bernardino County. How did he ac-
count for that?
that so far as his knowledge went there
was no San Bernardino lobby present.
Mr.. Streeter replied quietly that he was
notinquiring what Mr.. Sey ymour's knowl-
edge of the matter was. Resuming his
argument, he said: "This measure has
been before a committee of nine members
of this Senate, and after a patient and
careful hearing, requiring several ses-
sions, at which the fullest opportunity
for discussion was given, and all the
documentary evidence which either side
desired to produce was placed before
them, have given their deliberate opin-
ion that there is just and sufficient cause
why this bill should become law. That,
to my mind, Mr.. President, is one of the
most conclusive arguments in favor of
this measure. The first question which
we should consider, is whether the pas
sage of this law is necessary to promote
the best interests of the people included
in the new county. The people of North
ern San Diego are in absolute need of
some change in their county govern
| ment. They desire to cast their lot with
Riverside. Mr.. Casterline, who repre-
sents the people of Northern San Diego in
the Assembly-than whom there is not
more honorable gentleman in this Legis-
lature, whose home is with the people of
that part of the county included in this
bill-estimates that at least three-fourths