The record-union., 1897-02-17

third reading. The bill had been con-
sidered in Committee of the Whole on
Monday and reported back to the House
without approval. 1t was, however, re-
considered in Committee Of the Whole
yesterday, when Guy, Bridgford, Way
mire, Emnons and Valentine spoke
we'll and vigorously in favor of the Gre
alton of the commission. The points
made We're the necessity for uniform
legislation throughout the country on a
number of special points, such as the
and divorce laws, the taking
Of dispositions, insolvency, attachments,
etc. There are corresponding commits
sions already in twelve States, and
there is prospect of satisfactory ad-
justment in the near future.
The opposition came from Melick and
Dryden, who based their objections
on the matters of economy
and of the unpopularity of commissions
with the people. They also cited the
Code Commission, and believed that the
proposed work should have been done
by that bureau.
In reply Emmons claimed that this
was a very different work from that
done by the Code Commission. Their
duties We're solely with the revision OF
California codes and statutes, while
the case in hand was harmonizing of
the laws of different States now at
variance with each other. 1t needed
careful study and special work. En-
mons cited as an illustration Of the
necessity of such a commission the alb
surdities of the divorce law, the provi-
sions of which enable parties to secure
a divorce in Dakota for causes which
would not serve in California, while in
North Carolina and in New York the
vary in different directions.
The expense of the commission was
characterized as merely nominal, and
on this point Leavitt rose to say that
he considered the appropriation wholly
inadequate and objected on that
ground What was worth doing was
worth doing we'll, and he believed the
could not possibly do good
work on $500 per year for three MEM
bers
The Committee of the Whole reported
the bill favorably this time, and it was
to the Committee on Ways and
Means.
FOR THE CHILDREN.
The Committee on Public Morals re-
ported back favorably two bills for the
prevention of cruelty to children, bills
in which the Sacramento Society for
the Prevention of Cruelty to Children
is deeply interested. One is a technical
amendment of the Act providing for
the organization of such societies. and
the other provides a punishment for
wrongs TO children.
RELATING TO CONTEMPT.
Hon. A. p Catlin and c. K. Nc
Clatchy were before the Senate Com
mittee ON Constitutional Amendments
last night to discuss the freedom of
speech constitutional amendment pro-
posed by Prisk, which proposes to in
sert in the section the following:
No speech or publication rejecting
upon or concerning any court, or any
officer thereof, shall be treated or pun
tshed as a contempt of court unless
made in the immediate presence of
such court while in session, and in such
a manner as to actually interfere with
such proceedings"
Mr. McClatchy drew a brief outline
of the workings of courts under the
present constitutional provision, and
called attention to the fact that most
of the newspapers in the State urged
the adoption Of the proposed amend
ment. The statement which had been
going the rounds of the press for the
past few days that the amendment
was a copy of the section of the Fed
eral Constitution relating to the sub
ject. was not, he said, accurate, but he
contended that the committee should
report the amendment favorably on its
own merits.
Judge Catlin contended that it would
be difficult to find a more fragrant as
sault by a newspaper upon a court
than that made by the Bee" upon the
court of which the speaker happened
to be Judge He thought the newspa-
pers assumed too much, and that most
of the better class journals of the
State did not desire any such change
spoke OF the Bee contempt case as
having led up to the proposed amend
ment. and briefly detailed the salient
points in the case of Talmadge against
Talmadge. and the report of said case
as published in the Bee" and subse-
quent publications in the same jour
nal. all Of which, he contended, were
unjust
Mr.. McClatcby replied to Judge Cat
lin, and took up briefly the case of Tai
madga against Talmadge He stated
that the Pee" reporter had received
his information from the reporter of
the United Press, and that the Judge
had refused to allow that person to
testify in the contempt proceedings
which had been brought on account
Of the publication referred to-
Mr.. McClatchy said he thought 1t
probao!e taa; the Supreme Court would
sustain Judge Cabins decision, and
that in such case the people should be
protected from contempt proceedings