The record-union., 1896-02-14
Concurrent Resolution NO..7 Was TeIe-
Sraphed.
If Any Person Was Blameworthy, it
Was the Author of the
Resolution.

Governor on January 81, 1895. with a
request that he telegraph it to Wash
ington, as stated in the Record Union
yesterday.
The papers in question have charged,
more or less openly, that the resolution
was smothered in some mysterious way
through the influence of the Southern
Pacific Company and prevented from
ever reaching its proper destination,
thereby entailing unspeakable calamity
upon the State and country.
The statement made in the "Exami-
ner'' yesterday that the resolution never
reached the hands of Governor Budd
and never was telegraphed to Washing
ton as requested by the Assembly, has
caused a more thorough investigation
of the facts than had been previously
made. It is evident from the facts dis
closed that any possible trouble arising
in the matter is chargeable only to the
author of the resolution, who, in his
feverish haste to have it sent to Wash
ington Immediately and his fear that
it might be delayed took the matter
out of the hands Of the clerks-the reg
ular channel of transmission-and pro-
cured the sending of it by Governor
Budd that night to Congressman Ma
guire.
Now for the facts, which, being given,
the public can judge for itself as to
where the blame, if any, should rest.
Those that bear on the Governors re-
ception OF the resolution and the tele-
graphing of it by him are given on the
authority of Private Secretary McCabe,
who said yesterday to a Record
Union representative that the Gov
ernor had so stated them to him.
Belshaw and E. L. Colnon, who was
at that time Governor Budd's Private
Secretary, had rooms in the same house
and on the evening of the day that the
resolution was ordered transmitted,
the former was very anxious to find
the Governor and have him telegraph
it Immediately, for fear that the bill
would come to a vote before the reSo-
luton could reach Congress.
Colnon and Belshaw, the Governor
says, hunted him up and notified him
OF the passage of the resolution and
urged him to telegraph it without loss of
time In compliance with Belshaw's s
request, the Governor Immediately tel
egraphed it to Congressman Mcguire,
as one of the delegation to whom it had
been requested to be sent.
In support of the Governors state
1rent, if that were deemed at all neces-
sary, the records show that the tele-
graph toll, amounting to SIC 60, was
paid from the Governors contingent
fund This it will be observed. was on
the evening of the day on which it was
ordered transmitted, and shows how ur-
gent was the haste that impelled Bel
shaw. That Mcguire received it will
s4cxr bn cIo4xyr
BY reference to the Examiners" own
files, the fact was ascertained yesterday
that the fact of its having been so tele-
sraphed and received was well known
to everybody at that time
In the issue of that paper on Febru /
ary 2, 1895, about the middle of the
sixth column of the second page, ap-
pears in the message telegraphed from
Washington the preceding day the fol-
lowing quotation from Maguires state
rnent to a correspondent: Il have re-
ceived tonight from Governor Budd a
telegraphic copy of a joint resolution
adopted by the California Legislature
against the Reilly bill, and will
present it, with the other documents 7
have, with the petition"
on the next day, February Sd, the
delivered on the I'd, in the fifth column
on the second page, after speaking of
the petition against the passage of the
bill and favoring foreclosure and Gov
ernment ownership, quotes Mcguire as
saying: THAT sentiment is also ex-
pressed in the joint resolution of the
California Legislature telegraphed me
by Governor Budd and presented to-
day"
VIII the Examiner stultify itself
by declaring that it's reports of Con-
gressional debates were false, or win it
continue to deny statements published
in its own columns at the time? If so,
will it also deny the report of the pro-
ceedings published in the Congress
sional Record" of that date, which
states substantially the same facts?
With regard to the statement that
the records of the Governors Office do
not show that the resolution was trans
Tnitted to him, there is one point that
does not seem to have been considered
by those who have engaged in the con-
troversy The resolution in question
was a concurrent resolution and not a
Joint resolution, and Mr. Mcguire is
mistaken when he speaks of it as a
Joint resolution, as the records of the
Assembly show.
There is a difference oetween the two
in parliamentary usage and in the usage
of our State Legislature. A concurrent
resolution does not require the sigma
ture of the Governor, and only requires,
in order to pass it. a majority of a
quorum present in either house, and
does not require a roll-call. OF this
class of resolutions an instance would
be when one of the houses passes and
sends to the other a resolution to adj
journ at certain date. If also passed
by the other house. it certainly would
not require the Governors signature.
As said before, No. was a concurrent
resolution, and the records simply say
that it was adopted, there being no
Toll-call and nothing to show that more
than bare majority of a quorum voted
on it.
A joint resolution, on the contrary,
must have the signature of the Gov
ernor to make it binding, and Cushing,
IN his manual, says that it is form
recognized in many constitutions, and is
put by them on the same footing as a
law. The former resolutions introduced
on the same subject by Belshaw, Bled-
soc and Senator MCGOWAN, which failed
topass both houses, We're all Joint resolu-
- "Pure a
IN : !