The record-union., 1897-03-03
Evening Session.

Evening session.
SeaWell took up the thread of his
argument, and contended that Lang
ford's amendment was intended only
to kill the bill. Mendocino County. he
said, was not interested in the matter,
but he realized that something must
be done for the farmer whose property
lay along the river. On the other
hand, he thought the State ought to
have nothing to do in the matter, and
that the remedy properly lay in the
hands of the National Government. If,
however. it was necessary for the State
to offer a stimulus to the United States
to proceed in the matter. then the bill
should pass.
He had only recently voted to appro-
PIRATE $4,000 for the miners, and in
order to strengthen the arm of the Con-
gresham from this district, he was
willing to vote for the measure to help
out the farmer, whose possessions had
been rendered desolate by the miners.
The 100000 to be expended by the
State was a mere bagatelle compared
to the sums which would be poured
into the State by the United States
Government, and he hoped the amend
ment would not be adopted.
Aram protested against the adop-
ton of the resolution, and Bulla fol-
lowed in the same line.
BULLA FOR THE VALLEY
Bulla said so long as California was
one State, sectional feelings should
not be allowed to arise and if it was
shown that any benefit would accrue
= 60 1;-tr a+ o1a no
Sacramento River he would gladly ia
Vor an appropriation of ten times S3Oo-
900. To divide the amount of the
appropriation among different locali-
ties meant to. defeat the object of the
bill. He opposed the amendment and
proposed to support the bill because he
believed that good would accrue to
that section of the State known as the
Sacramento Valley.
SMITH DOUBTS.
Smith stated that he was not so
sure but what Langfords amendment
was along the right line.
GLEAVES INDORSES THE BILL.
Gleaves hoped the amendment would
not be adopted, as any amendment at
this time meant a practical defeat of
the bill.
DOTY EMPHATIC.
Doty stated that Sacramento and
Marysville We're paying out thousands
of dollars annually to protect the prop
erty of their citizens from floods. He
had stood in the Legislature in years
gone by and fought the miners, but
to-day miners and farmers had joined
ha llI
agreed that this appropriation was
necessary-absolutely necessary for the
protection of the inhabitants of the
valleys and the interests of the inhab
itants of the mountains. He asked
the Senate in the name Of humanity
and in the name Of God to vote down
the amendment and pass the bill.
DICKINSON, TOO.
Dickinson said that when the bill was
first introduced he had been inclined
to oppose it, but since he had carefully
considered the proposition he had come
to the conclusion that $30O,OQ0 could
not be better expended than in improv-
ing the first river in the State. He be-
lieved the money would be properly ex-
pended, and should it not, two years
and he would be the first to call for it.
He felt assured also that the slickens
of 1880 would not be repeated and if
two years hence he found that it had
been the miners would hear from him.
He would oppose the amendment and
vote for the bill.
PEDLAR PROTESTS.
Pedar said he had been taught to
believe that the care of all navigable
waters of the State properly belonged
to the United States, and if the amend
ment were voted down he should later
along offer another along the same line.
He said Sacramento was not free from
obligations, and had it not been for the
mining industry Sacramento to-day
would consist of Suffers Fort.
LANGFORD AGAIN.
Langford said it took but a short time
to pass a good law, but a long time to
repeal a bad one. His amendment
would make the bill good one. He
was willing to experiment, but did not
believe in experimenting on one river
and allowing all the others to go to the
devil
AMENDMENT DEFEATED.
The question being on the motion to
submit the bill to a special committee
of one to amend it was lost by vote
of 13 to %.
SIMPSON FOR THE BILL.
The question being on the final pass
age of the BILL Simpson took the floor
and said he represented a portion of
the State far removed from the scene,
where direct benefits from the bill
would be felt. He was aware that his
position on the question would meet
with disapproval from at least a por-
ton of his constituents, and therefore
spoke for the bill with hesitancy He
realized, however, that a majority of
the citizens of the State We're not so
narrow minded as not to discern that
what benefited one section of the State
benefited all sections He came from
a progressive section and believed his
constituents would realize that the
spirit of progression should be extended
throughout the length and breadth of
the entire State. The object of the bill
was such that he considered it the duty
OF every Senator to support it.
From his earliest childhood. the
speaker said he had been interested in
the progression of the great State of
California. When a child he had sat
upon his mothers knee and heard her
sing that old song that was so popular,