Imágenes de páginas

The defeat of Wright's amendments cleared the way for the vote on the bill. Only six members voted against the measure. Twenty-eight voted for it.156

The bill had passed both Houses, but it had not passed the Legislature. It could not be sent to the Governor until the Senate's amendments had been disposed of. If the Assembly failed to concur in any one of the amendments, the bill would be returned to the Senate. This would give opportunity for further debate and delay. If the Senate failed to recede from the rejected amendment, then the bill would be thrown into a Conference, and later, probably into a Free Conference Committee. And the hour of adjournment was less than twenty hours away. Failure of the Assembly to concur in the Senate amendments would in all probability result in the bill's defeat. I The Conservationists

re-printing, at a time when the State Printing office was congested with the work which both Senate and Assembly were thrusting upon it, its passage would have been very doubtful. It will be noted that the same thirteen members voted for both amendments.

The vote on the first Wright amendment was:

the Wright amendment-Anderson, Birdsall, Boynton, Breed, Campbell, Cartwright, Cohn, Curtin, Juilliard, Owens, Sanford, Shanahan, and Wright-13.

Against the Wright amendment-Benson, Brown, Bryant, Butler, Carr, Cogswell, Finn, Flint, Gates, Gerdes, Hewitt, Jones, Kehoe, Larkins, Lyon, Strobridge, Thompson, and Tyrrell—18.

The vote on the second Wright amendment was:

the Wright amendment-Anderson, Birdsall, Boynton, Breed, Campbell, Cartwright, Cohn, Curtin, Juilliard, Owens, Sanford, Shanahan, and Wright-13.

Against the Wright amendment-Beban, Benson, Brown, Bryant, Butler, Carr, Cogswell, Finn, Flint, Gates, Hewitt, Jones, Kehoe, Larkins, Lyon, Mott, Regan, Rush, Strobridge, Thompson, and Tyrrell-21.

156 The vote by which the Conservation bill passed the Senate was as follows:

For the bill-Beban, Benson, Birdsall, Boynton, Breed, Brown, Bryant, Butler, Campbell, Carr, Cogswell, Finn, Fint, Gates, Gerdes, Hans, Hewitt, Jones, Juilliard, Kehoe, Larkins, Lyon, Mott, Regan, Rush, Strobridge, Thompson, and Tyrrell-28.

Against the bill-Anderson, Cohn, Curtin, Owens, Sanford, and Wright-6.

in the Assembly found themselves in a position where they were obliged to accept the Senate amendments, whether they liked them or not, or see their bill defeated.

The amendments came up in the Assembly for concurrence shortly before nine o'clock Sunday night. There were at the time the greatest excitement and confusion in the Chamber. The members had been without sleep; since nine o'clock that morning they had been passing bills as fast as the roll could be called. Many were getting their effects ready to leave the building

Announcement of the question of concurring in the Senate amendments to the Conservation bill did not seem to arouse the opponents of the measure.

Several of them failed to answer when their names were called. Finally, in the midst of the roll-call, the question was asked from the floor: “What are we voting on?” Bohnett, who was in the chair, again announced the question,167 and the roll-call proceeded. The vote was announced as forty-one voting for concurrence in the Senate amendments and ten against.158

The greatest confusion followed. Several opponents

157 During this roll call Finnegan of Nevada City, a strong supporter of the Conservation bill, was called out of the Assembly Chamber. Finnegan, had he been permitted to remain in the Chamber, would have voted for concurrence.

158 The vote by which the Assembly concurred in the Senate amendments to the Conservation bill was:

For the amendment-Alexander, Ambrose, Beck, Benedict, Bloodgood, Bohnett, Bowman, Bradford, Bush, Cary, Chandler, Clark. Wm. C.; Clarke, Geo. A.; Ellis, Farwell, Ferguson, Fish, Fitzgerald, Gabbert, Gates, Gelder, Hinkle, Johnson, Geo. Johnston, T. D.; Johnstone, W. A.; Judson, Killingsworth, Moorhouse, Mouser, Palmer, Richardson, Roberts, Ryan, Slater, Smith, Sutherland, Tulloch, Walsh, Woodley, Wyllie, and Young-41.

Against the amendments—Bagby, Brown, Collins, Cram, Dower, Grifin, Guill, Murray, Shannon, and Simpson-10.


of the measure were on their feet demanding recognition. Killingsworth, one of the leaders of the opposition, had voted for concurrence. He wanted his vote changed, but the roll-call had already been announced. George H. Johnson moved that the vote by which the Assembly had concurred in the amendments be reconsidered. But the point of order was raised against him, that a motion to reconsider final action on a bill could not, under the rules, be made on the day preceding final adjournment. Bohnett, presiding, ruled the point well taken. Johnson appealed from the Speaker's decision, but the Assembly sustained Bohnett. The Conservation bill had finally passed the Legisla

ture. 169

Governor Johnson, in spite of efforts to prevent him, signed the bill.

But there is too much at stake for large interests to permit of anything being left undone to defeat this measure. The referendum has been invoked against it. The People will be called upon in November, 1914, to say whether this important Act of the 1913 Legislature shall go into effect. Until then its operation has been suspended.

159 On the day following-Monday, the day of adjournment-an attempt was made to discredit the roll call by which the Assembly had concurred in the Senate amendments. But this failed.



The 1913 Legislature attempted passage of a law providing State regulation of gold dredging. The measure was introduced by Kehoe of Humboldt. It was known as Senate Bill 713. From the moment of its introduction, the measure met the determined opposition of forces both within and without the Legislature. The bill was finally defeated in the Senate.

Dredge mining as at present conducted in various parts of the State has turned hundreds of acres of soil, once capable of sustaining human life, into hideous wastes of barren cobble piles. The dredgers winnow the gold from every cubic foot of the soil from surface to bedrock. By the process now followed, the dredger as it passes turns the mass of earth and cobbles over, leaving the soil at the bottom and the cobblestones on top. 160

160 This waste of soil is recognized to be unnecessary. At slightly additional cost, the soil could be left after dredging very much as it was before. In fact, land has-according to the Sacramento Bee, whose editors have followed gold dredging ever since the industry was started—been practically dredged without injuring it for agricultural purposes.

The first large gold dredger on the American river," says The Bee (Feb. 25, 1913), "was that of the Ashburton Company, operating on Sailor Bar just above the Fairoaks bridge, and eventually destroyed by fire. That machine was so constructed and operated that it dumped the cobbles and boulders to the bottom of the pit in which it floated, and deposited the fine soil on top, thus leaving the land worked over very much as in its original condition, and practically as level as before.

“But since that time the dredges have so been built and operated as to deposit the fine material on the bottom, and pile the cobbles and gravel on top, in windrows twenty-five or even

At the 1905 session of the Legislature a strong effort was made to secure legislation for the conservation of agricultural land regardless of its immediate value for dredge-mining purposes. The measure failed to become a law. It was predicted by the supporters of the measure, however, that a similar bill would to a certainty pass the 1907 Legislature. But no such action was taken at the 1907 session.

Eight years passed after the 1905 session before the matter was again taken up. Then the Kehoe bill was, at the 1913 session, introduced.

The measure provided that before land could be dredged for gold,161 written application to do such

thirty feet high, thus reversing the natural conditions and making subsequent use of the land for farming or fruit growing practically impossible. The exceptions are exceedingly rare, as in the case of the Leggett vineyard at Oroville, but even in that instance the results of replanting have not been wholly satisfactory.

“Ordinarily, the cost of hauling away cobbles, or even of leveling and replanting dredged land, would be hundreds of dollars an acre, and practically prohibitory."

161 Francis J. Heney, at the time the Dredge Mining bill was under consideration in the State Senate, gave out the following interview regarding the principle under which the measure was drawn, and its provisions:

"I have read the Dredger bill which has been introduced in the present session of the Legislature of California, and I heartily approve of the principle upon which it is based, and the bill seems to be drawn so as to accomplish the operation of that principle.

"The highest purpose to which land can be put is, of course, the production of food supplies for the people. Food is the first essential for human existence and the high cost of living in this country is partly due to the fact that we are already falling behind in the production of food supplies. It is a well known fact that the United States is now producing less food per cultivated acre than any country in the world, except Russia. This is due to the wasteful and reckless use of our agricultural lands, by the crude methods of the early settlers and of some of their descendants and successors, who scorn the suggestion that farming could be improved by scientific methods. A growing necessity for cheaper food supplies is causing a strong movement throughout the nation in favor of more scientific and more economical use of our farming lands.

"Certain portions of Northern China once supported a dense population where now the entire country is a desert.

The present condition is due to the fact that the people of former genera

« AnteriorContinuar »