The record-union., 1899-02-23

Clough was against the bill on prin-
cipie
Mack spoke we'll in support of it,
3 On roll call the bill was passed, title
approved and sent to enrolment.
CONTESTED ELECTIONS.
The remainder of the afternoon was
spent In considering the report of ex-
penses allowed by the Committee on
Contested Elections, the totals Of which
were given in this paper at the time
the report was offered. The report was
sustained in every item by the House,
though several motions to raise the
sums allowed contestees were made and
lost
ADJOURNMENT.
The House adjourned at $40 p. M,
after the Governors message had been
opened and the numbers of bills ap-
proved and disapproved announced.
The messages, which were not read, are
given below:
GOVERNORS MESSAGES.
His excellency. Governor Gage, sent
to the Assembly yesterday afternoon
several messages
The following bills received the Gov
ernor's signature and were
APPROVED.
Valentines A. B. 81, amending the
Act to provide for work upon streets,
ETC., relating to securing claims for
labor done and material furnished.
j. NJ. Miller's A. B. 81, relating to
property exempt from execution.
Richards A. B. 1853, relating to the
filing and service of affidavit of bill of
costs and motion to retax same.
Melicks A. B. 2S6, allowing City,
County or Town Treasurers to deposit
public funds in incorporated State
banks.
DISAPPROvED.
Four other bills We're not so for
tunate. The Governor vetoed them,
giving his reasons in four separate
messages given below:
NO GOLDEN POPPY.
Sacramento, Feb. q, 1899.
To the Assembly of the State of Cali
fornia: l herewith return to your honor
able body, without my approval, Assem-
bly, bill No. 229. entitled IAN Act to select
and adopt the golden poppy as the State
flower of California" with my objections
thereto.
1 disapprove of this. State selection from
the flora of California, because l do not
think it a proper subject for legislation.
HENRY T. GAGE.
Governor of the State of California
RIGHT OF APPEAL SUSTAINED.
Sacramento Feb. 81, 1890
To the Assembly of the State of Cali
fornia | herewith return to your honor
able body, without my approval together
with my objections, Assembly bill No 145.
entitled 'An Act to amend Section 3460 of
the Political Code of the State of Califor-
ton districts, and to provide for hearing
of the land owners before the Commits
sioners of Assessment in relation to such
assessments
disapprove of this bill. because by the
provisions of Section l thereof the final
adjusting, equalizing, fixing and deter
mining of the assessment is left to the
sole arbitration of the Commissioners of
made final and conclusive upon all per-
sons, and cannot be afterward subject to
contradiction, dispute or attack.
Such denial of the right of appeal is
not, in my opinion, consistent with Just
principles. HENRY T. GAGE,
Governor of the State of California.
TOO MUCH POWER.
Sacramento, Feb. q, 1899
To the Assembly of the State of Call
fornia: l herewith return to your honor
able body, without my approval, with my
objections thereto. substitute for Assem-
bly, bill No 30. entitled An Act to amend
Sections 257s, 25SS. 25Ss, 1890, 25sl, 2695 Of
1872, relating to the powers and duties of
said Board of State Harbor Commission
ers for the bay of San Diego"
This bill not only re-enacts all of the
objectionable provisions of the present
law relative to the powers of the State
Harbor Commissioners for the bay of San
Diego, but by ingeniously worded amend
degree as to menace the rights of the
people, as we'll as the commerce of the
State.
BY the amendment to Section 2,5SS of the
iaoJ CQ(a Ixrf tic hill = ,a
said Board of Harbor Commissioners are
empowered Ito make a plan of the har-
Dor for the construction of piers and
wharves, and any improvements that said
board may deem advisa ble.''
1t is further provided by the amendment
to said Section 1888 of the Political Code
with reference to the adoption of surveys
and plans for the line of harbor embank-
ment and sea wall, that the said survey
and plan as adopted shall be followed in
the construction of said sea wall, piers
and wharves, as the same may be, made. "
The construction of a sea wall for the
harbor of San Diego, which had hereto
fore been authorized by the law as or
iginally enacted, had wisely been deferred
and practically proved a dead letter for
the reason that the shipping interests of
San Diego did not justify such conStruc-
ton. To now authorize tas is proposed
by this bilD the preparation of elaborate
plans and the erection of a sea wall and
expensive piers. slips and wharves, would
be either to demand large appropriations
from the State in aid of such plans which
the State is unable to bestow. or. on the
other hand. to tax the ship owners to the
extent of practically destroying the ship
ping interests of that splendid port.
Among other things the construction of
a sea wall, with the burdens incident
thereto, would in effect work a confisca-
ton of many valuable properties on the
water front not justified by the conditions
and commerce of the port.
| The bay of San Diego, with its wonder
full natural advantages, already affords
such protection to all vessels entering
that port, and there is no necessity for
any such immediate harbor Improvement
at the enormous cost contemplated by the
present bill
But there is another feature of this bill
which renders it much more objection
able The bill clothes the Harbor Com
missioners with the power ito set apart
for the uses and purposes of dry docks
and marine railways such portions of the
water front as the wants of commerce
may require, and lease the same for a
| period not to exceed fifty years.
! The law as 1t now stands gives power to
lease for such purposes for a term not
to exceed ten years, power altogether
excessive, and which should not have been
passed in the first instance, and which
should now be repealed
The present BILL by amending Sections
257e and 2605 of the Political Code, extends
the term of leasing to fifty years, thus
vesting in the Harbor Commissioners au-
thority to cede away the peoples rights
10 railway ana otneT corporate CONTROL.
Under the provisions of our law no
farmer nor other private person can be
either the lessor or lessee of land for
agricultural purposes for a longer period
than ten years, neither can the business
| man, nor other private person. lease town
or city lots for longer period than
twenty years.
When such restraints are imposed upon
the alienation of private land why should
the special privilege proposed by this bill
be conferred upon corporations of leas-
| ing for half a century the public land?
| Again, by the provisions of Section 2605
of the Political Code s amended by this
bill. the limitation upon the quantity of