The record-union., 1897-02-09

which had been in the hands of the Ju-
dietary Committee for some time, be
withdrawn and referred to the Finance
Committee. The motion prevailed.
Holloway for the Committee on Con-
tingent Expenses reported back several
items purchased for the use of the Sen
ate, including a number of rubber
stamps, recommending that cut of
about Is per cent be made on the latter.
The report of the committee was
adopted.
OMNIBUS BILL.
Then the special order, being the con-
sideration of the county government or
general omnibus bill, was taken up.
Smith for the committee stated that
owing to the extreme length of the bill
it had not been printed, but that he had
on his desk an annotated copy which
could be examined. He stated that those
amendments handed in by the several
county delegations had been inserted as
committee amendments. He hoped that
all desired amendments would be offered
during second reading and that the
committee would resist any attempt to
amend at the third reading.
Morehouse and Langford objected but
after the matter had been explained by
Smith, the Secretary commenced read
ing the bill. Prior to this, Smith stated
that as yet no amendments had been
handed in relating to salaries of San
Francisco officials, and that if such
amendments We're desired he hoped they
would be made when the section pertain
ing to the counties of the first class was
reached.
Braunhart gave notice that he had
number of amendments to offer at the
proper time.
THE FIRST SQUABBLE.
The reading of the bill went merrily on
puntil section Is, which provides that
Supervisors shall be elected by the quail
flied electors of the district which they
represent had been reached, when Dick-
inson offered an amendment providing
that candidates for Supervisors should
be residents of the districts they were
supposed to represent and nominated at
a convention of the electors of such dis
trict, but that the election should be at
large in the county instead of being con-
/ fined to the district wherein the candi
date resides.
Simpson said such an amendment was
: dangerous, and that it would initiate
against country districts, or those which
might be small as regards population.
Aram took a similar view of the situ-
alton and protested against the adop-
ton of the amendment.
SeWall contended that the amendment
was proper and that if Supervisors had
the affairs of the entire county at heart
much better satisfaction would be Sc
cured.
Bulla opposed the amendment chiefly
because a political party might have a
: majority of votes in a, certain district,
While the entire county might be ad-
verse. and that such district certainly
should be represented by it's own cleo
tors and not by those of the county at
large.
, Doty said the amendment involved a
+ principle. and he hoped it would not
pass. He believed it was intended by it's
provisions to disfranchise country dis
tricts and place county governments
entirely in the hands of county seat poll
0 ticians. He did not desire to see the
= rural districts of Sacramento County
disfranchised in favor of Sacramento
politicians, and therefore opposed the
adoption of the amendment.
Smith also opposed the amendment
e and it was lost by a viva voce vote.
/ BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION.
I Section - was the next stumbling
g block. 1t provided that where the cost
of the construction of any bridge, wharf.
chute or other shipping facilities exceed
i the sum of $500, they (the Board of
: Supervisors must cause to be prepared
land ,11lSt a6Ont nj nc and Cpaci f,a tdonS
Q etc. and must advertise for bids for con-
:, struction
QUESTION OF LIMIT.
Morehouse raised the question as to
> the advisability Of making $500 a limit,
: and recommended an increase to 81 900.
r Aram Of Yolo took up the cudgels and
r contended that his county had of late
= been building it's own bridges and found
that great saving had been made by
: that arrangement To fix the limit at
II which bids must be advertised for at
: $500 would practically preclude counties
n from erecting their own bridges He
II moved an amendment providing that
. the limit be fixed at $4,000
= Boyce insisted that the limit should be
L fixed at 81 000-$500 being too low, and
Il $1,000 too high.
DOly Sdiu llldl III the interest Oh BOOQ
s government, it was safer to legislate in
c the interest of the people than in that
Of bridge companies or contractors. He
thought the limit should remain at $500.
, Aram submitted that if the limit was
q fixed at $500 counties would be obliged
: to let contracts to bridge builders and
q consequently pay any price demanded
by them. 1t was a question of trusting
the Boards of Supervisors of counties or
= of trusting bridge builders. He thought
e it safer to trust the Supervisors, and
G contended that if dishonest men were
q elected, the people could subsequently
remedy the matter at the polls He in
sisted upon the $4,000 limit
= Smith stated that the bill was not en-
II tirely drawn in the interest of Yolo
n find out just where the Yolo Senator
tAram) stood He submitted that the
question was whether bridge building
should be let to keen competition, or
h whether it should be done by days work
Y as had been the case in Yolo County.
r He thought the taxpayers preferred the
= competition.
Morehouse offered an amendment in
creasing the limit to 81 900
e The question being on Morehouse' S
o amendment, it was lost, as was also that
II offered by Aram, and the Secretary read
r on and on.
THE BILL.
1t may here be stated thatthe bill under
II consideration was identical with the
s. county government bill passed at the
q last Legislature and which racaivad a