The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-03-08
MOTIVES OF OPPONENTS.
Certain AssembIymen Seek to
Prevent the Reduction of
SheriffS' Fees.
MEMBERS VIOLATE PLEDGES.
In Spite Of the Opposition the Meas
ure Passes by Good
Majority.


SACRAMENTO, March I'm the Assembly
this afternoon there was long debate on
bill SCI, the idea of which came from the
San Francisco Board of Trade, proposing
to lessen the amount of expenses necessary
for an insolvent debtor to turn over his
goods to his creditors. The bill is the work
of the Judiciary Committee, and was the
result of long, hard work by men who rec
ognized the viciousness of the present sys-
tenn.
But the word went around that the bill
was intended to give the 'rich merchants
of San Francisco" a lever with which to
pay their bills 1t was on this ground
alone that the fight was made.
When the bill first came up Reid of Trim
ity had an amendment he wanted accept
ed. The law in its present form makes it
a prima facie evidence of intent to defraud
if a merchant mortgages any of his prop
erty within thirty days OF tne time he goes
into insolvency. Reid wanted this stricken
out. He argued that the banks would fear
to loan money to merchants whose credit
was shaky, and that the latter would often
be torced to the wall when, if they could
mortgage their property, they would have
been able to weather the storm.
Powers of San Francisco spoke of the
frequency with which convenient brothers
in-law got property on mortgage. To
amend the bill at the present stage of pro-
ceedings was endangering its passage He
thought the gentleman should have put in
his amendments before, when the bill was
hain af,,ll. g
only against the dishonest debtor" he said
''The debtor class cannot be opposed to it,
since it lessons the amount of expense
they now have to endure to make a settle
ment. The only men who will be injured
will be lawyers, who will lose fees, and the
sheriffs, whose bills will be cut down ma
| terially."
Bu1la of Los Angeles announced that
every honest debtor would be in favor of
the bill. He will no longer have to go
down in ignominy as only paying 10 cents
on the dollar, because the fees of the
Sheriff, keepers, assignee and attorneys
have eaten up all his property" said he.
''Instead he will be able to show that he
was able to return at least 80 or 40 cents"
Judge Waymire and Mr.. Spencer spoke
in the same line, showing the value of the
bill and its many terrors for the man who
would try to cheat his creditors.
Then the previous question was moved.
Reid wanted chance to close the debate,
but the ruling of the previous question
shut him out. Reid's amendment was lost
Then the question of the passage of the
bill came up. Not enough votes were cast
| to carry the measure and call of the
House was demanded AS soon as the
| doors were closed the real lobbying began.
1t was evident that the pity for the mer-
chant was only put on. The trouble lay in
! the fact that the Sheriffs' fees would be cut
| down. In San Francisco the perquisites
of the Sheriff alone would be cut down at
| least $4,000. The Sheriffs of the smaller
counties would lose porportionately. Of
course their influence was actively at work,
and the rumors of an active "sack'' grew
to ominous proportions.
There were large enough interests at
| stake to give these rumors the aspect of
| fact and number of members were forced
to object to the presence of lobbyists how
| ering about the doubtful members At
first it was thought the San Francisco dele
| CATION would be solid for the bill. Bettman,
Dinkelspiel and Powers were foremost
among those pressing the bill, although
| they were aided materially by all the lead
| ing attorneys on the floor.
| At last the call of the House was dis
pensed with and the roll was finished.
| Then it was shown that the bill was passed
| by vote of A to 80. One of the votes in
| the affirmative was cast by Thomas of
| Nevada, who was actively fighting the bill
in the interests of the Sheriff of his county
| He moved reconsideration for tomorrow.
| The action of those San Francisco men,
bers voting against the bill has caused
much unfavorable comment. The Demo-
cratic platform pledged its members to
''aid the commercial and mercantile inter-
ests and avoid unnecessary delays and
| needless expense by passing such amend
ments to theinsolvent act as would shorten
| the time when assignees might be chosen
to ten days, and limit the fees and ex-
| penses connected with keeping insolvents'
assets, prior to the election of assignees, to
| the amount allowed Sheriffs for holding
property under attachments" The reso-
luton concluded: ''And we pledge our
| legislative and municipal nominees to
| carry out the spirit of this resolution"
| Coughlin, Mccarthy, O'Day and Twigg
voted against the bill.
IHe hePupiicaH plduorm pleQged 1CS
| legislative candidates to similar measures.
| Boothby, Dewitt Lewis, Merrill, Wilkin-
| son and Zocchi voted against the bill.
| Among the others who opposed the
measure were: Ash, Cargill, Coleman, Col
Inns, Gay Holland Huber, Hudson, Keen,
| Laugenour, Osborn, Pendleton. Price,
Reid, Richards, Robinson, Sanford, Staley,
| Stansell and Tibbitts.
TIIF JNDDhNI Hr ATH6