Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

McCarthy would be on hand the next day to make the motion. Not a few labored under the impression that, since McCarthy had given the notice of intention, he alone could move reconsideration. Had this impression had foundation, the absence of McCarthy the following day would mean the defeat of the bill. Opinion was common that the Conservationists were leaning upon a broken reed. But, fortunately for the bill's proponents, notice of intention to move for reconsideration is not the property alone of him who gives it, but of every member of the House. This fact gave added value to McCarthy's motion.

When the Assembly roll was called the following morning, McCarthy did not answer to his name. As the hour for the noon recess approached, Bohnett took the matter out of McCarthy's hands and himself moved for reconsideration.

The opponents of the measure were awaiting this motion. They were ready. And, for the first time, the supporters of the bill were prepared and ready also. The opposition was led by Killingsworth and Simpson. Theodore A. Bell had a seat on the Assembly floor, and it was openly charged that he was there to direct the fight against the measure. Bohnett and Johnstone headed the supporters of the bill. The moment Bohnett moved for reconsideration, the fight began.

Roll-call on Bohnett's motion had not proceeded far before it was discovered that many members had left the chamber Bohnett moved a call of the House that the absentees might be brought in. This was granted. When seventy-three of the eighty members were in the chamber, Bohnett consented to discontinuance of the

RECONSIDEerto

call. The vote was taken, and Bohnett's motion to reconsider carried by 43 to 30.147 The opposition had lost the first skirmish.

By the time the vote for reconsideration had been taken, the hour of recess had arrived. Bohnett moved that the hour of recess be extended until the Conservation bill should be disposed of. The opposition, seeking delay, objected. Palmer moved as a substitute that the Assembly be at recess. The vote was taken on Palmer's substitute motion. The substitute motion was defeated by a vote of 29 to 41.148 The opposition had lost again. Bohnett's motion that the hour of recess be extended until the bill should be disposed of, prevailed.

The opposition's next move was a motion to amend the bill. It was the last straw that broke the patience of the bill's supporters.

Bohnett moved the previous

147 Reconsideration was granted by the following vote:

For reconsideration-Ambrose, Benedict, Bohnett,_Bush, Canepa, Cary, Chandler, Clark, Wm. C.; Ellis, Emmons, Farwell, Ferguson, Finnegan, Fish, Fitzgerald, Gabbert, Gates, Green, Inman, Johnston, T. D.; Johnstone, W. A.! Judson, Kingsley, Kuck, McDonald, Moorhouse, Mouser, Nelson, Nolan, Peairs, Richardson, Roberts, Ryan, Scott, Smith, Strine, Sutherland, Tulloch, Walsh, Weisel, Woodley, Wyllie and Young—43.

Against reconsideration-Alexander, Bagby, Bowman, Bradford, Brown, Byrnes, Clarke, Geo. A.; Collins, Cram, Dower, Ford, Griffin, Guiberson, Guill, Hayes, Johnson, Geo. H.; Killingsworth, Libby, Murray, Palmer, Polsley, Schmitt, Shannon, Shearer, Simpson, Slater, Stuckenbruck, Wall, Weldon, and White-30.

148 The vote by which Palmer's substitute motion was lost was:

For recess and for delay-Alexander, Bagby, Bowman, Bradford, Brown, Byrnes, Clarke, Geo. A.; Collins, Čram, Dower, Ford, Griffin, Guiberson, Hayes, Johnson, Geo. H.; Killingsworth, Libby, Murray, Palmer, Polsley, Schmitt, Shannon, Shearer, Simpson, Stuckenbruck, Wall, Walsh, Weldon, and White-29.

Against recess and against delay-Ambrose, Benedict Bohnett, Bush, Canepa, Chandler, Clark, Wm. C.; Ellis, Emmons, Farwell, Ferguson, Finnegan, Fish, Fitzgerald, Gabbert, Gates, Green, Guill, Inman, Johnston, T. D.; Johnstone, W. A.; Judson, Kingsley, Kuck, McDonald, Moorhouse, Mouser, Nelson, Nolan, Peairs, Roberts, Ryan, Scott, Slater, Smith, Strine, Sutherland, Weisel, Woodley, Wyllie, and Young—41.

The way

question. This brought the question of amendment to immediate vote. The motion was defeated. was clear for the final vote on the bill.

Maneuvering for delay, the opposition started further debate. Every member present had decided how he would vote. Further debate was useless. Johnston moved the previous question. The opposition contested this motion, but the Assembly was weary of delaying tactics, and the previous question, by a vote of 45 to 18,149 was ordered. This brought the opposition dangerously near to final vote on the bill.

As soon as the vote on the previous question was announced, however, Killingsworth moved that the Assembly adjourn. Young, because of the vote on the previous question, ruled Killingsworth out of order. George H. Johnson made a point of order that a twothirds vote was necessary to order the previous question. Young ruled the point not well taken.

This brought the Assembly to the vote on the bill. The measure was passed by a vote of 44 to 30.150

149 The vote on Johnston's motion for the previous question was:

For the motion-Ambrose, Benedict, Bohnett, Bush, Byrnes, Canepa, Cary, Chandler, Clark, Wm. _C.; Cram, Ellis, Emmons, Farwell, Ferguson, Finnegan, Fish, Fitzgerald, Gabbert, Gates, Green, Guill, Inman, Johnston, T. D.; Johnstone, W. A.; Judson, Kingsley, Kuck, McDonald, Moorhouse, Mouser, Nelson, Nolan, Peairs, Roberts, Ryan, Scott, Smith, Strine, Sutherland, Tulloch, Walsh, Weisel, Woodley, Wyllie, Young-—45.

Against the motion-Alexander, Bagby, Bowman, Collins, Dower, Ford, Griffin, Killingsworth, Palmer, Polsley, Schmitt, Shannon, Shearer, Simpson, Slater, Stuckenbruck, Weldon, and White-18.

150 The vote by which the Conservation bill finally passed the Assembly was:

For the bill-Ambrose, Benedict, Bloodgood, Bohnett, Bush, Canepa, Cary, Chandler, Clark, Wm. C.; Ellis, Emmons, Farwell, Ferguson, Finnegan, Fish, Fitzgerald, Gabbert, Gates, Gelder, Green, Hinkle, Inman, Johnston, T. D.; Johnstone, W. A.; Judson, Kingsley, Kuck, McDonald, Moorhouse, Mouser, Nelson, Nolan,

After two months of practically continuous fighting the supporters of the bill had succeeded in getting it

through one House of the Legislature. The Legisla'ture was to be in session for ten days longer,

Peairs, Roberts, Ryan, Scott, Strine, Sutherland, Tulloch, Walsh, Weisel, Woodley, Wyllie, and Young-44.

Against the bill-Alexander, Bagby, Bowman, Bradford, Brown, Byrnes, Clarke, Geo. A.; Collins, Cram, Dower, Ford, Griffin, Guiberson, Guill, Hayes, Johnson, Geo. H.; Killingsworth, Murray, Palmer, Polsley, Schmitt, Shannon, Shearer, Simpson, Slater, Smith, Stuckenbruck, Wall, Weldon, and White-30.

CHAPTER XII.

CONSERVATION BILL IN SENATE.

The Conservation bill reached the Senate on the day of its passage in the Assembly, Saturday, May 3. But instead of being sent to the Committee on Irrigation, where it belonged, it was referred to the Committee on Drainage, Swamp and Overflowed Lands. Before the mistake could be corrected, the Senate had adjourned for the day. As a result, the bill was not recalled from the Committee on Drainage, Swamp and Overflowed Lands and sent to the proper committee until Monday, May 5. In this way, two valuable days were lost, at a time when every moment counted.

Further delay was played for by the opposition lobby, which requested of Senator Mott, chairman of the Irrigation Committee, that the bill be made subject of a public hearing on Tuesday night, May 6.

Mott appreciated the situation fully. The bill had been discussed and discussed again before his committee. He refused to make further discussion pretext for delay. But he consented to a hearing for that (Monday) evening.

The committee met at 8 o'clock. At that time the Legislature was in the confusion of the "jam” of the closing hours of the session.181 The committee had scarcely begun its work when, under a call of the Sen

151 See Chapter XXVIII.

« AnteriorContinuar »