AFTERNOON SESSION.
On motion by Mr. CHAPMAN, his bill [S.39] authorizing Water Works Companies to purchase property and franchises of pre-existing Water Works Companies at judicial sale, was taken up, read the second time, Committee Amendments concurred in, the bill considered as engrossed under a dispensation of the Constitution restriction, read the third time, and passed the Senate by yeas, 41; nays, 0.
CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR announced the special order, being Mr. Brown's bill [S. 3], providing for the calling of a Constitutional Convention, which was read the second time.
On motion by Mr. BROWN, it was amended so that the Convention shall consist of fifty members.
Mr. SPANN moved to change the time of meeting from September to June.
Mr. FOSTER opposed the amendment, as he desired the farming community to be represented in the Convention.
Mr. SPANN feared if the Convention met in September it would run till spring.
The motion was rejected.
Mr. VIEHE moved to amend so that two-thirds of the Convention shall constitute a quorum, as is the practice under our present Constitution.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. VAN VORHIS moved to strike out the enacting clause, thinking it should be determined first whether we want a Convention or not before proceeding to perfect this bill.
Mr. MENZIES thought, as an act of courtesy, the author should be heard on the merits of his bill before it is so summarily disposed of and it is evident to those present that he is not in a condition to properly present it to-day.
Mr. VAN VORHIS withdrew his motion.
Mr. VAN VORHIS made an ineffectual motion--yeas, 25; nays, 19--to postpone further considera- page: 80[View Page 80] tion of this bill till next Tuesday, at 2 o'clock p.m.
Mr. WILSON moved an amendment limiting the sessions to ninety days.
Mr. CHAPMAN contended that the Legislature could not limit the length of sessions for a Constitutional Convention.
Mr. SPANN took a contrary view--that the legislature has the right not only to limit the length of time, but also to fix the place where and when the Convention shall meet, the number of officers it shall have, and to place any other reasonable limit.
Mr. VIEHE thought the work ought to be done in thirty days, but such a body should not be limited as to time by the General Assembly.
The amendment was rejected.
Mr. GRUBBS moved to make the pay of members $10 a day.
On motion by Mr. FOSTER, it was laid on the table.
On motion by Mr. BROWN, the bill was ordered to be engrossed for the third reading and made the special order for Wednesday of next week, at 2 o'clock p. m.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR announced the special order for this hour being the bill [H. R. 16] providing for the submission to the qualified electors of this State for ratification or rejection the proposed Constitutional Amendments as adopted by the General Assembly at the sessions of 1877 an 1879. [May be ratified by a majority of the votes cast.] It was read the first time, and referred to the Judiciary Committee.
GRAVEL ROADS.
Mr. Ristine's bill [S. 54], to amend Section 7 of the gravel road law of 1879, was read the second time, with a Committee report, which was concurred in.
Mr. MARVIN moved to amend the bill by restoring the proviso, and doubling the amount of outstanding bonds allowed by the existing law. Increasing from $50,000 to $100,000.] We have tried the $50,000 limitation for two years and like it well, and now we are willing to double it, and then if it be thought wise to throw off all limit it can be done.
Mr. RISTINE explained the purpose of the bill was to leave off the proviso to Section 7 of the present law, and opposed the proposed amendment.
Mr. SCHAFFER was sure his County could not construct roads as fast as the people demand, because of the limitation in the present law. He favored the bill because it strikes out the limit.
Mr. BRISCOE--His section of the country has eshausted the $50,000 limitation of the law. His people were willing the limit shall not exceed $100,000. He opposed an unlimited amount. It is well that County Commissioners should have their hands tied, otherwise the County would be swamped with indebtedness on account of gravel road bonds.
Mr. URMSTON cited a case in which the proposed amendment would work a great hardship--where the roads are all on one side of the County. He opposed any restriction.
Mr GARRIGUS referred to two gravel roads in his County which were for a long time in litigation,, just ended, resulting in a deduction from the assessment of 18 per cent., and now, as the bonds were issued by the County, the County must pay the balance, there not being enough left from the assessments to pay them. He was in favor of free gravel roads, but did not like to render the County liable to pay the bonds issued for their construction.
Mr. RISTINE contended that the present law was a dead letter in many Counties, by reason of this restriction. This law has been the means of building and improving many gravel roads. As it stands, it works injustice in that one part of the County gets roads, and other parts of the Counties are cut off. Two-thirds of the County of Montgomery is unable to construct roads because the limitation has been exhausted in the other one-third. When it is remembered that it is not the debt of the County, but of those parties adjacent to the road, why is this objection made to removing the restriction?
Mr. VAN VORHIS favored the proposed limitation.
Mr.GARIGUS moved to amend by adding proviso that the County shall not be liable payment of the bonds.
Mr. URMSTON resisted the amendment, fearing if it were adopted no sale could be made of bonds.
Mr. RISTINE also thought the amendment would take away the market value of the bonds, and thereby render the law useless.
Mr. CHAPMAN considered there would be really no market for such a bond and the law would be nugatory. A bond at par value, payable by assessments on A, B and C, bearing 6 per cent, could not find a market.
Mr. VAN VORHIS believed discussion has developed the wisdom of the amendment proposed and rejected a little while ago. If Counties are liable for these bonds there ought to be a limit fixed.
Mr. GRAHAM lived in County having more gravel roads in proportion to territory than any other County in the State. He opposed the bill as it stands while proposing no limitation, and opposed extending, but rather favored limiting the powers of County Commissioners, and would at this time favor the pending amendment. Unless such bonds can be sold without indorsement of the County they had better not be issued.
Mr. URMSTON reported such an amendment as simply saying the bonds issued by the County are of no validity. He would rather see the law wiped out than that such an amendment should should prevail.
Mr. CHAPMAN understood a bond issued under the pending amendment would be a bond without any payor, as the parties assessed would not be parties to the bond. Such a law would be worthless entirely, and had better not be placed on the statute books.
Mr. GRAHAM did not intend to act foolishly in the endeavor to protect County Treasuries. The purpose of the bill is to enable organizations to construct gravel roads. Under former laws they were constructed without the aid of Counties, and why can not it be done now.
On motion of Mr. RISTINE, the further consideration of this subject was postponed and made the special order for Thursday, at 2 o'clock p.m.
And then the Senate adjourned?
