The record-union. [volume] (Sacramento, Calif.) 1891-1903, 1899-03-03

PAiS1AC8SS.
Gillette said he would far rather have
had the proposed amendment come out
squarely and demand exemption than
that it should leave the matter in the
hands OF the Legislature. He contend
led that if the amendment was adopted
it would mean years of shameless lob
bying. He said the Senate owed it to
itself to stamp out all vicious or special
legislation.
Jones said that the great majority
Of pupils never had chance to get
higher than the fourth or fifth grade
of the public schools. He held that
when adj educational institutions should
be exempted from taxation the univer-
sity ought to come in--not before.
Smith said he had an idea that a
speech against the amendment would
have little avail, inasmuch as the steps
of the members had been logged by
persistent lobbyists ever since they
reached the city. He objected to the
exemption proposition because 1t did
| not set out its meaning fairly and
squarely. The gist of the question, he
said, was not to be submitted to the
people. The argument had been forced
| on him, as it would be forced on the
| people, did the proposed amendment go
before them. that the exemption propo-
sition rested with the Legislature, and
| that members could always be elected
who could be depended on to look out
! for the best interests of the State. He
would have felt, he said, much more
| like voting for the amendment if the
exemption proposition had been set out
Co.: L,.% 4, 4 Io1,1
pealing and log-rolling. which would
NOT look we'll in the higher educational
| circles.
| Smith said if the State was to confer
fayors upon any University, the Berk-
eley institution should be that one. He
had no unkind feeling for Stanford
University, but he felt that the people
of the State could not afford to take
upon their shoulders the burdens of
that University, until it had amply pro-
vided for the one now on its hands.
! Royce favored the amendment.
| Rowell opposed the amendment, claim
! ing that the proposition struck at the
very root of taxation. 1t was the old
story over again, attempting to engraft
upon the Constitution special privileges
| for specific corporations. He said 1t
was the continual escapes from taxa
| ton that gave California a new Consti-
tuition, and that the present amend
ment amounted to only an effort to
| tear down what had been built up.
| He said that if endowments were
made provisions should first be made
| for paying the taxes Of the institution.
| and then for the support of the inSti-
tuition. He considered it bad policy to
strike at the fundamental principles of
| taxation.
| Stratton said he looked at the ques-
ton from a practical and not senti-
mental standpoint He knew of no
reason why the property of the State
University should be exempt from taxa
ton, and that of Stanford be taxed.
Thirty-fve States Of the Union, he said,
made the matter of similar exemptions
permissive and ten made it positive, so
that the proposition did not attempt to
establish a precedent He claimed that,
regardless of what might be said the
tuition of pupils was a deterrent to
the dissemination of higher education,
He felt that no harm could come from
submitting the proposition to the peo-
| pie.
Curtin proposed to support the
amendment in order to find out whether
the. people looked with favor on the
matter of endowments for higher edu-
cation, or whether they proposed to
throw cold water on it.
| The roll was called and the amend
ment was passed by vote of % to Z.
JUDGES SALARY BILL KILLED.
Wolfe, for the Free Conference Com
mittee on Curtin's bill, So, providing for
increasing the salary of the Superior
Judge of Tuolumne County from So, coo
to S., 800, reported back recommending
that the Senate concur in the Assembly
amendments. The Assembly amend
ment increased the salaries of Superior
Judges of San Francisco from $4,000 to
5000 per annum.
The amendment in question had twice
met with defeat at the hands of the
Senate, and that body had in no wise
seen fit to change, as was manifested
by the vote in which it refused to con-
cur by a vote of ID to Is.
"Does that vote kill the bill?" in
quired Curtin, who was its author.
II should say replied the President
Pro Tenn, shat it kills it very dead
And SO it happens that the Superior
Judge of Tuolumne County will have to
worry along with his old salary, and
that the Judges of San Francisco will
be obliged to do likewise.
TWO VETOES, ONE APPROVAL.
A message was received from the
Governor announcing his disapproval of
s. B. 81, appropriating 81. 800 to furnish
the State Treasurer's office The rea-
sons given for the veto was that the
amount appropriated was excessive, and
that it was made payable this year,
instead of on January /. 1900.
Also, that he return without his ap-
proval s. B. u.s. appropriating $1,000
to pay the claim of Lawrence Dumb
gan.
Also, that he had approved S. B. 21,,
appropriating ST. $50 to pay the claim Of
Thomas Hatch
WITHOUT RECOMMENDING
Dickinson, for the Finance Commit
tee. reported back substitute for s.
B. 545, appropriating $500, 900 to pay
the expenses of maintaining an exposi-
ton to be held in San Francisco in 1901.
to be known as the Pacific Ocean and
international Exposition, and to provide
Commissioners therefor, without recon-
mendation.
Also. $. B. 100 to appropriate 81 ,12O
to pay the unpaid salary of the late
Dennis Spencer. as attorney for the
State Board of Health-do pass.
Also. A. B. 127, approprating "a, 500
for the purchase of additional land for
the State Prison at Folsom-do not
pass.
FREE CONFERENCE.
On motion Of Taylor, a committee on