Court Opinion

ID: 9559063
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:21:40.295526+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:09:45.913456
License: Public Domain

McALLISTER, C.J.,
specially concurring.
I concur in the result of the majority opinion but dissent from that portion thereof that relies on the legislative history of Oregon Laws 1953, ch 723. In view of the turbulent history of that act as recited in part in Gilbertson et al. v. Culinary Alliance et al., 204 Or 326, 282 P2d 632, we can only speculate why the legislature eliminated the provision authorizing the recovery of damages. The unreliability of the legislative history in this instance is illustrated by the statement of Senator Richard L. Neuberger made when the act was passed in the closing hours of the 47th legis*646lative assembly on April 21, 1953, as recorded in the Senate and House Journal of 1953, page 365:
“There is nothing sacred or magic about 100 days. I would rather stay here 101 days and consider major issues carefully. It does not make sense that we gave minor matters careful consideration on the 70th or 80th day and then we must rush through major and fundamental bills on the 100th day, to meet an illusory and artificial deadline. The people of this state expect us to know what we are passing when we enact basic legislative proposals. Yesterday we acted on proposals not yet printed. I shall not let my vote consent to such procedure today. For these reasons I have voted ‘No’ on suspending our rules.”