The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-03-14

the purpose of navigation shall be withheld
from grant or safe to corporations"
The word grant as used in the constitution
includes lease. This being true am OF the
opinion that the proposed amendment is with
in the inhibition of the constitution.
vote ''no" upon the question OF concurrence
in the hope that q committee of free conference
may be appointed, and that such committee
propose an amendment to the bill in question
empowering the Board of State Harbor Com
missioners TO permit the use and privilege OF
terminal facilities TO any road under such con-
ditions and circumstances as now used and had
by other corporations.
l am unalterably opposed to the granting Of
public property or rights which should be held
by the people TO any corporation. The history
of legislation demonstrates the utter FOLLY of
the people giving to corporations valuable
rights and property.
Senator Orr followed with another writ
ten explanation:
vote "no" because there is no provision in
the bill requiring one mile of road to be built,
and while there is one prohibiting the assign
ment OF this lease, there is none prohibiting
the subletting of any portion of the property
and it may result in the control of the whole
property by corporation for private purposes
to the loss of the State.
Senator Seawell declared that Senator
McGowan's written explanation of his vote
fitted his case.
Senators Seymour and Simpson made
parallel statements.
When the name of VOORHEES, was called
the Senator from Amador said: ''There
have been many explanations of adverse
votes on constitutional grounds
propose to explain my vote. The At
orney-General of the State declares that
the bill is constitutional and | vote aye -
And the bill escaped from the fangs of
the Southern Pacific and the Governor has
but to approve it.
There has been talk of Sen atorial COM
bine of ftwenty-three. Newspaper men have
heard it. Senator Biggy referred to it, de-
claring that he knew of but one man who
belonged to it, the man who, he says,
sought to bribe him to enter such a COM
bine. He did not know that any other
Senator had joined such ring to loot.
Now there may be no such thing as a
combine, but whether there be one or not il
is interesting TO compare the votes on GER
tain propositions. When Senator Biggy
yesterday afternoon sought to save San
Francisco from the Southern Pacific
! amendments to bill regulating streetcaTs
and streetcar fares the following Senators
voted against his first amendment:
Aram, Arms, Androus, Danison, Dunn, Flint
Hart, Henderson, Hoyt, Linder, Mahoney
Mitchell, Orr, Seymour, Shine, Simpson, Toner
Subtract the names of Androus, Deni-
son and Flint from this list and fourteen
of the sixteen Senators who voted against
the valley road terminal remain.
After Senator Biggys daring expose and
Senator Wilmington s denunciation of the
Southern Pacific lobby, coupled with Sen.
ator McAllisters efforts to save San Fran
cisco, there was break for cover; yet nine
Senators had the hardihood to vote for a
Southern Pacific cinch on the streetcar
traffic OF San Francisco, and these were:
Denison, Dunn, Hart, Henderson, Linder,
MahOney, Mitchell, Seymour and Toner.
And all these, except Denison, repeated
their record this morning by voting with
the Southern Pacific against the valley
road.
Take the rollcall on the scalpers' bill, a
Southern Pacific bill, and majority of the
negative votes cast this morning will be
found to have been for that bill. Take
every "cinch" bill which has come up this
session and you will find either the author
or the ardent supporter OF such bill among
| the sixteen who voted against the valley
road,