The Russellville Democrat., 1881-03-03
Our Little Rock Letter.
Editors Russcllville Democrat:

Editors Rnssellville Democrat:
 In the house of representatives on the 10th day of February, 1881, Mir. McKennon, of Johnson called up his motion to reconsider the vote by which house bill No. 60 was tabled, making one of the most forcible ar guments which it has been my pleas ure to listen to since the days of Col. Tom Hindman in Arkansas. He brought the question Of unau- thorized influence being brought to bear upon the legislature directly by the granting of free passes by railway companies to the members of the general assembly. Such in- fuence two years ago vas evidently brought about by free passes, free dinners and free rides, which virtu- ally exempted the roads from taxa tion, by bringing about a reconsid- eration of the vote which they had previously taken refusing such ex- emption. That all men had their price, and as it appeared from the vote to table the minority report of the committee recommending the passage of MT. HowelPs free pass bill, winch unde" parliamentary law also tabled the bill.
 That free tickets, insignificant as they are termed, succeeded in their object to trample the democratic constitution under foot which was framed by the best men of our state and adopted by the vote of the peo pie, knowing as they did that the bill introduced by Howell, If passed, was only an entering wedge to repeal the act of 1879 sxempting virtually the roads fron taxation and enacting just and equitable laws alike to the railroads and the people.
 Mir. Hewitt, of Lee county, follow ed Mir. McKsnnon in g speech of some ten or fifteen minutes trying to justify himself and those of his colleagues who have and wish to retain those free passes compliment cd them by the various roads with out intent to influence their actions"
 Howell followed Hewitt, stating that it was net his intention ts make a speech, as speech making was no part of his profession; especially did he wish not to detaia the house and consume its valuable time without entertaining a reasonable hope of reconsideration. But from the fact that he was the Introducer of the bill, he would r0lterate what he said on Saturday last, that it was drafted with due regard for the mandatory provision of the constitution which he and every member Tn the house lad sworn to support. See sec. ' art. IT; and he stated without the fear of being assailed by any lawyer who has any regard for his legal opinion, that the bill was not un- constitutional CT any provision in it, but that it is in strict conformity with It's provisions, and avery lawyer in the house knew it. It is only . sharp dodge to say that the consti tuition did not provide that those re- ceiving passes were to be held as cul- pable as the parties granting, and that it did speak badly for the house, after having on all former occasions whore their interests had not been brought in conflict with the provls- ions of the constitution to hold that instrument up and say It's provisions we had sworn to obey, and must obey. But as soon ss a bill is pre- sentsd which conflicts with their private interest, though it bs in strict conformity with the provisions of the constitution, they cry out they cannot be influenced by free passes and regard it's provisions as obsolete and unnecessary. Jay Gould has said that it was much easier and ". II. SCOTT E. LOT