The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-03-12

then labored hard to show the unconstitu-
tionality of the bill. He was followed by
Dinkelspiel. who announced that the con-
stitutional question was absurd. The OBJ
lection that the rent proposed was too
small seemed to him ridiculous when the
assistance given to other roads was con-
sidered. He thought the purpose of the
amendment was solely to obtain delay and
obstruct the bills passage. Once more the
floor was claimed by Powers. The bill, he
said, was drawn so that it would not come
under the prohibition of the constitution.
1t would be folly to try to make the COM
peting road take piece of land they could
not use. They would have to send an en-
gineer to survey the front in order to specify
the land they wanted.
"This,' the speaker continued, sis not
right, it is not fair, it is not equity. There
is no necessity for it except the necessity
which the Southern Pacific Company feels
of keeping the water front for itself"
He urged that San Francisco as a munich
pality had SO much interest at stake that
it should be represented on the board of
commissioners by the Mayor. 1t was not
right to deprive the city having more in
terest in the matter than any other locality
OF its representation because of personal
prejudices against man.
Mr.. Powers explained that the bill was
merely an enabling act. The San Joaquin
Company and the Harbor Commissioners
would have to decide whether lease
would be desirable and if the property
were improved and the lease was not legal
it would be the railroad company and not
the State that would be the loser.
Judge Waymire of Alameda announced
that he was in favor of the bill just as it
stood. Bulla of Los Angeles wanted the
water front kept open. He was afraid that
before ten years a certain number of men
wonld have absorbed all the stock of the
company, and thus give them the control
of the proposed fifty acres.
"Are you not aware that the property
reverts to the State in fifty years?" asked
Judge Waymire.
Bulla answered this by asking question
in return as to what the new company
would be required to put on the land.
Phelps OF San Mateo made stirring
speech for the bill as it stood.
1--WE can never have real prosperity" he
said, 'till San Francisco, Sacramento and
Los Angeles are railroad centers. l be-
lieve in giving every competing road ter
minal facilities, such as those contem-
plated in the bill. If some of the argu-
ments presented here were sound, the ex-
listing roads would have a sole and
perpetual right to the water front. The
constitution did not intend to convey such
a monopoly to one corporation"
Reid OF Trinity then INDUCED in talk
about giving away ones birthright. He
was opposed to giving up the peoples
claim to the front. He assented that the
San Joaquin Valley Railroad wanted the
earth, but that they would not get it. If
his amendment were not satisfactory, then
he wanted the bill referred to some com
mittee. No one doubted this Still the
House was not willing to grant it, and a
general murmer of interest went up when
Judge Waymire asked, "Was not this bill
drawn up under the advice of Mr.. Holmes,
the chief engineer of the Harbor Commits
sion, who was once in the employ of the
Southern Pacifc?'
Il know L telegraphed for Mr.. Holmes,
but l don't know about his ever being a
railroad man." was Reid's answer.
By this time the House had grown i'm
patient. The question was demanded
and Reid's amendment was defeated, the
vote being as follows:
Ayes-Barker, Brusie, Bulla, Butler, Collins
/ Cutter, Ewing, Glass, Hatfield, Huber, Kenyon
North, Osborn, Reid, Wade, Weyse-16
Noes-Ash, Bachman, Bassford, Belshaw
Bennett, Berry, Bettman, Bledsoe, Boothby
Cargin, Coghlin, Coleman, Dale, Davis, De
vine, Dewitt, Dinkelspiel, Dixon, Dodge. Dun.
no Face
Holland, Hudson, Johnson. Jones, Keen
Kelsey, Laird, Lewis, Meads, Mccarthy, Mer
rill, Nelson, 0Day, Pendleton, Phelps, Powers
Price, Richards, Robinson, Rowell, Sanford
Spencer, Staley, Stansell, Swisler, Thomas, lib
bits, Twigg, Waymire, Wilkinson, Zocchi-57
Absent and not voting-Freeman, Laugenour
Llewellyn, McKelvey, Tomblin, wilkins, Mr.
| Speaker.
Laugenour paired with McKelvey, who
would have voted for the amendment
| Speaker Lynch also refused to vote.
McKelvey's motion was voted down by &
decided viva-voce vote. Then further
needless delays were shut off by call fo
the previous question.
This brought up the bill for final pas
! sage, amended only to make it Illegal fo
the new company to assign lease it nigh
have obtained. Only nine men voteC
against the bill, while 60 voted for it.
was noticeable that on this occasion alsC
the Speaker did not vote. Those who voteC
against the bill were:
Noes-Barker, Brusie, Bulla, Cutter, Hatfield
Huber, Reid, Wade, Weyse-9.
The supporters of the measure were:
Ayes - Ash, Bachman, Bassford, Belshaw
Bennett, Berry, Bettman, Bledsoe, Boothby
Butler, Cargill, Coghlin, Coleman, Collins
Dale, Davis, Devine, Dewitt, Dinkelspiel, Dixon
Dunbar, Dwyer, Ewing, Fassett, Gay, Guy
Hall, Healey, Holland, Hudson, johnson
Jones, Kelsey, Kenyon, Laird, Laugenoul
Lewis Meads, Mccarthy, Merrill, Nelson
North, ODay, Osborn. Phelps, Powers, Price
Richards, Robinson, Rowell, Sanford, Spencer
Staley, Swisler, Thomas, Tibbits, Twigg, Way
rnire, Wilkinson, Zoechi-60.
Powers moved to have the bill trans
mitted Immediately to the Senate Thi
was ordered and many of the members lef
their seats to exchange congratulation
when they were electrified by hearing De
vine of San Francisco announce: ''M1
Speaker, I. wish to give notice that on tn
next legislative day l will move to recon
slider this vote" This caused the bill t
be held back. 1t was thunderbolt from
clear sky.
Tho 10 NJ