, 1888-02-26

MY tAo " VI PlOSSuuiS NhS
child's play. Let the opponents of the
bill fight it like men. 1t was decidedly
wrong to evade the question.
Mr.. Sampson was not trying to dodge
the issue. Everyone would know where
he stood when the proper time came.
The vote on Mr.. Sampson's amendment
was a tie, and Chairman Summers de-
clared it lost.
Mr.. Curriers' proposition was to make
the manipulation of nut shells a INSIDE
meanor.
Considerable discussion ensued. Debate
might have continued indefinitely had not
the Albany county delegation learned that
circus followers carried several hundred
dollars from Laramie last season with the
aid of three innocent looking nut shells.
Mr.. Grant favored the amendment. Mr..
Pease renewed his explanation that the
bill included gambling devices of all sorts.
Mr.. Adams thought all games should be
mentioned, while Mr.. Hooper wondered
why the Laramie father of the bill neg
lected to include nut shells. Mr.. Blake
said a sufficient number of games were
mentioned. Mr.. Cummock illustrated the
methods of the nut shell operators in the
old country. Mr.. Currier desired en-
~lightenment on the panel game. Mr..
Blake explained, whereat the gentleman
from Carbon remarked that panelling was
robbery, not gambling.
The nut shell amendment was adopted.
Six members voted in the negative.
Mr.. Viewers amendment created a
sensation. 1t is. in the expressive term
of the Greek, a corker. The offering of
prizes at fairs, rafies of all sorts, in
church and out; horse racing, boat racing
and foot racing for money or,valuables and
election betting are made f%elonies.
Mr.. Lafrentz desired to know if the
gentleman was in earnest. Mr.. Weaver
was never more serious in his life.
Mr.. Lafrentz charged that the intro
Queer had spoken fippantly of his amend
ment on the outside, saying hat he would
feel like kicking himself if it was adopted.
Mr.. Weaver had said that "he would
feel like kicking himself if he injured the
fair association" He desired the pro-
hibition of gaming. His gambling ex-
perience was limited to a wager upon a
horse race during a meeting of the fair
association, of which Mr.. Lafrentz was
secretary.
Mr.. Lafrentz was secretary OF the asso-
citation, but was not financially interested
in the fate of the measure.
Mr.. Sampson wondered why baby
shows were not included in Mr.. Viewers
amendment.
Mr.. Pease was convinced that the bill
was to be killed with amendments. He
was Disguised with the action of the
house.
Mr. K~uykendall was a horse raiser and
the adoption of the amendment would
injure his business. but conscience com.
PEELED him to support it.
Messrs. Sutherland and Rummel were
angry. The bill was being killed with
kindness.
The proposition to consider separately
the sections of Mr.. Viewers amendment
Awas accepted, although Mr.. Pease ex-
pressed a willingness to take the bitter
pill at one dose.
There was a general debate on each
paragraph. but all were adopted.
Section 10 of the original bill, allowing
games for pastime was stricken out.
Another amendment by Mr.. Currier
made the iniormer exempt and gave him
half the penalty. Mr.. Blydcnburgh said
the winner should be debarred from in
forming. Mr.. Sampson said that if the
iniormer received half the penalty he
must be imprisoned fifteen days. Mr.. Van
Devanter's amendment exempting wit
nesses from prosecution and Mr.. Curriers'
suggestion were adopted.
A. this juncture a tilt between Mr.. Van
Devanter and Speaker Pease enlivened
the occasion. The former offered an
amendment making gamblers ineligible
for jury service in a gambling case. The
gentleman from Albany objected to plac.
ing restrictions on the rights of citizen
ship. Mr.. Weaver failed to see the appli-
cation Of the objection.
Mr.. Van Devanter claimed that Mr.. Pease
refused to make a single concession and
insisted upon questioning the motives of
prosecutors of amendments. As for him
self he would do as he pleased. He was
opposed to the original bill because it did
not provide for the convection of violaters
Of its provision. He cited legal aut hority
for his amendment and maintained that a
gambler was not a competent juror in a
gambling case.
Mr.. Lafrentz in~terposed. He was in
favor of honest amendments, but OBJ
iected to %loliticaI trickery in this conucc
ton.
Mr.. Pease responded to Mr.. Van De
Vanter. He Judged mems motives by
their actions, hence questioned his op
poncnt's sincerity There was neither