The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1895-02-28
GOOD ROADS DISCUSSION.
Many Amendments to the Blu In the
assembly.


Many amendments to the Blu Il, the
assembly.
SACRAMENTO, Feb. 27.-Every member of
the Assembly was interested in the good
roads bill which came up as the special
order at II o'clock this morning. Numer-
Gus attempts were made at amendment,
the principal one being directed against
the provision establishing the Office of a
county commissioner of the roads.
An amendment to strike out Section 2
| was introduced by Berry of Santa Clara.
He was opposed to taking the superintend-
| ing of the roads out of the hands of the
| Supervisors.
! Spencer stated that while he was in favor
! of all other portions of the bill he thought
the Supervisors could look to the bettering
of the roads. This would obviate the nee
essity of an extra official drawing salary
of S. a day and expenses.
The majority of the country members
were opposed to the amendment though.
"At present" said Reid of Trinity, "the
| Supervisors order repairs, spend the money,
pass on the bills, and then audit and pay
their own accounts. / think that there
should not only be road superintendent,
but that the law should read that the Su-
pervisors shall be compelled to let con-
tracts for bridges and similar work to the
lowest bidder instead"
Rowell OF Fresno said that he could not
see the necessity of road superintendent
at first, but after hearing the testimony
brought before the special committee he
had become convinced that the measure as
it stands was the best thing that could be
devised.
Hall of Placer also opposed the amend
dment, and so did Swisler of Ell Dorado.
| But the amendment carried Just the
same, Al votes being cast in the affirmative.
Then Osborn moved to strike out all of
section 8. This would utterly emasculate
the bill, as the section, offensive to the
Santa Clara Assemblyman, provided that
each district shall be in the hands of a
road overseer who shall be elected for one
year at the same time school trustees ar
voted for. Hatfield of Sacramento said he
would like to see the amendment carry,
and would be pleased to have sections 4, 5
and stricken out also.
| Spencer of Lassen entered up an earnest
protest against the proposed amendment.
Brusie of Sacramento stated that, at
present there was a rivalry among the
Supervisors to see which one would get the
best roads for his district. He was OPP
posed to change. Belshaw of Contra
Costa, on the other hand, said his con-
stltuents to a man were opposed to the
| Supervisorial methods.
| 81 regret to have to differ from the gen.
tleman from Sacramento" Swisler said,
but the press of the county does not up
! hold his statements. The papers of this
city are all calling for the passage of a
measure that will better the present sys-
tems This feelingI have found common
| in all parts of the State.''
| The amendment was lost by vote of "a
to So. A call of the house was demanded,
but the request was eventually withdrawn
A motion of intention to reconsider by
Osborn was declared out of order as he
| voted on the losing side. Dixon of San
Francisco, who was able to be in his seat
for the first time in several days, gave the
desired notice later, though.
| number of minor amendments fol-
lowed. Then Hatfield moved to strike out
section 4, detailing the method of electing
the road overseer.
Bledsoe objected. "Why," he cried, "you
might as well strike out the enacting
| clause"
A storm of "noes" evidenced the feeling
of the house.
Belshaw amended the fourth section so
as to make districts liable for the expense
of building water works and sprinkling the
roads in proportion to the benefits they de-
rived therefrom. Another amendment
made it mandatory for the Supervisors to
accept the lowest responsible bid for any
road work, providing also that they might
reject any bids.
Wade of Napa wanted the section struck
out which refuses the Supervisors power
to pay more than twice the assessed value
for any land they might condemn for road
purposes. His amendment was carried.
Barker wanted to amend so as to take
away the right of the Supervisors to estab-
lish "grand trunk roads" His amendment
was lost, as the members wanted to con-
| slider the matter later.
| The amendments of the road law were
completed at the afternoon session. On
motion of Cutter incorporated towns were
exempted from improving trunk roads.
An attempt to allow the Assessor to collect
road poll taxes instead of the road over
seers was lost, and the bill was sent to the
printer.
The bill providing for an autopsy surgeon
for the Coroner of San Francisco was car
ried by vote of 40 to Z.
The entire San Francisco delegation
voted for the bill, with the exception of
Boothby, who refused to vote, and Dixon,
Dinkelspiel and O'Day, who were absent.
Belshaw changed his vote to ''aye" in or
ser to reconsider, making the vote so to 6.
4
| BOISTBROUS NIGHT SESSION.
The assembly Struggles With BelsharU,s
Salary Regulation Bill.
SACRAMENTO, Feb. 27-It has been a
night of uproar in the Assembly chamber.
The House held its first evening session to
consider the urgency file tonight. The
contest occurred over Belshaws bill to
regulate all salaries of officers and EN-.
ployes of State institutions and making
the maximum salary of any officer of such
! institutions $4,000. Belshaw amended to
except Supreme Court Commissioner and
president of the State University, but this
made trouble for dozen exemptions were
called for and more or less confusion en-.