The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1895-03-02

over privileges VI lhO Otdte anu XIII tne
Republican party. l do not consider Dr.
Robinson and his suits in the least. I am
| looking at what is right and wrong.
| Brusie of Sacramento came to the rescue
of the bill. He declared that the bill was
an instrument to increase the moral sense
of the citizens of California. The law now
allows a man to profit by promoting dis.
obedience to the law. Since law is a rule
of action, to encourage men to break those
| laws was poor policy. Brusie protested
| that Mr.. Dodge was mistaken in thinking
| the bill had any reference to the scalpers
since it said that the holder of a ticket
should have all his rights. He scored Dr.
Robinson severely for encouraging the
railroad to break the laws in order that he
might profit thereby.
Bledsoe of Humboldt thought Brusie's
criticism of DR.. Robinson was weak, be.
cause if the railroad company had obeyed
the laws set down in the statute books DIR.
Robinson would not have had any ground
| for action.
why" Bledsoe said, ''to argue that to
insist upon ones rights is to encourage
crime is preposterous. You might as well
say that because the Tax Collector insisted
upon the railroad company's paying taxes
! he was tempting them to break the law,
and this made it excusable for them to re-
fuse to pay their taxes"
| Cutter once more took the floor. Dodge,
| he was sure, could not have read the law
to any purpose. If he had Cutter was sure
that the Alamedan would see that there
was nothing said about scalped tickets.
Then Reid of Trinity started to talk. He
riveted the interest of the House. He even
neglected to shake only two fingers, so ex-
cited and earnest became he Reid de-
clared that if the bill sought to do away
with DR.. Robinson's decisions in the Su-
preme Court, then it was unconstitutional.
He continued:
"If it does this, shall we stand up here
and at the behest of this soulless corpora
| tion-for they cannot say it is for the con-
ductors this time-pass law to take away
any citizens right? Who would be the
gamer thereby? What excuse save that of
the retainer obeying his master could be
given? The present law provides penalty
| for misdeed. 1t has been decided to be ef-
| fective by the Supreme Court. Why, then,
should we attempt to foist upon the public
this new law which takes away one of their
rights that has been established by long
litigation, to give them-what? Permission
to begin new series of contests"
The speaker warmed to his subject as he
proceeded. He vehemently denounced
those favoring the measure, which, he de-
clared, contained a cloaked anti-scalper's
provision.
''To be sure it says, ANY holder of a
ticket at the end" he cried, s'but in the
beginning it says, ANY purchaser, and the
Supreme Court would decide that the word
Holder would gain its meaning from pur-
chaser, and thus take away any right to
ride on sealped ticket"
Swisler was sugpr; ed at the position
taken by some of the members OF the House.
He declared that he was not able, try as he
would, to find the alleged "bug' in the bill
that some one had mentioned. 1t seemed
fair and rational to him.
Spencer of Lassen, who has voted with
the railroad from the beginning, paralyzed
the House by announcing that he was
going to vote against the measure, since
he thought the purpose of the bill was full
filed by the present law.
Wade of Napa raised laugh by declar-
ing that he believed Robinson was the only
man in California who ever downed the
railroad, saying:
"As long as they had DR.. Robinson down
no one heard of this fight. DR.. Robinson
did not come to the Legislature begging for
top. as soon as the railroad has been fairly
beaten in the courts, it comes and demands
that the laws be changed
"And now are we, at the commands of
this corporation, to surrender up the rights
that the people have enjoyed for the last
twenty years? What excuse can we give?
What answer could we make if we commit
this outrage?
81 for one will refuse to consent to it.
will not go back to my constituents and
say, Yes bartered away your rights and
did it for the Southern Pacific Railroad"
The previous question was then called
tor, thus cutting off any chance to amend.
Bulla of Los Angeles objected and with
Dinkelspiel of San Francisco voted to give
the bill its second reading, explaining that
he was opposed to killing a bill so sum-
marily. The reading of the bill second
time was authorized by vote of AZ ayes
to q noes, Mr.. Collins, the new member,
apparently getting on the wrong side by
mistake. The vote was as follows:
Ayes-Bassford, Berry, Bettman, Boothby.
Brusie, Bulla, Butler, Cargill, Coughlin, Cut
ter, Davis Devine, Dewitt, Dinkelspiel, Dixon,
Gay, Guy, Hall, Hatfield, Healey, Hudson,
Kelsey, Kenyon, Laird Laugenour, Lewis,
Meads, Mccarthy, McKelvey, Merrill, Pendle-
ton, Phelps, Powers, Price, Richards, Swisler,
Thomas, Twigg, Weyse, Wilkinson, Zocchi, Mr..
Speaker-42.
Noes-Barker, Belshaw, Bennett, Bledsoe,
Coleman, Collins, Dale, Dodge, Dunbar,
Ewing, Fassett, Glass, Holland, johnson, Jones,
Keen, Nelson, North, Osborn, Reid Robinson
Rowell, Sanford, Spencer, staley, Wade, Way
mire--27.
Absent and not voting-Ash, Bachman,
Dwyer, Freeman, Huber, LleweIlyn, O'Day,
Stansell, Tomblin, Wilkins-1O.
The bill having been read second time,
Bledsoe wanted to amend by introducing
clause making the railroad company
liable for 5000 to person to whom it had
refused stopover privileges. Another dis
cussion followed, aid the adoption of the
amendment was put to vote. On call
of the roll the amendment was lost by
vote of Al to %.
Bulla and Dinkelspiel voted for the
am endment and Collins, the new member.
~A--l IL