Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1896-02-04
Text Of the Report Mr.. Digs Wanted
to File Yesterday.
ENDORSES THE MAuPIx BILL.
Eiuht Members of the Count.es/
Cities, and Towns Committee Lfo-
test Against the Endorsement OF
the Pitcher and Rcddy Bills.

the Capitol has for several days been
stamping ground for the horsemen, and
there is a strong lobby in the interest Of
the Pitcher bill. which was favorably
reported by the House Committee on
Counties. Cities, and Towns.
The gentlemen who are opposed to this
bill have not been idle during the past
few days. either and they will make -
strong fight for the Maupin bill and hope
TO have it passed. When this subject
was considered by the committee the Sc
cond time there were only nine
out of the thirteen members pres
ent. OF these. five voted for the
Pitcher bill. which differs but slightly
from the Reddy measure, while four
wanted the Maupin anti-pool-selling bill
endorsed a second time. Since that meet
ing the four members who were absent
have united with the four who voted for
the Maupin bill, in a supplemental re-
port, which Chairman Diggs made an
unsuccessful attempt TO have entered
upon the record of the House yesterday.
This was an Irregular paper, and under
the rules could not be received.
THE SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT.
The report viii be read with interest
just now 1t is as follOws:
Richmond. Va, January 80. 1896.
To the House OF Delegates Of Virginia:
There were two bills In reference to
gambling, book-making and pool-selllng
in Virginia referred to the Committee on
Counties. Cities, and Towns.
One Of these was House Bill No 100,
with Mr.. Maupin its patron, and the
other was House Bill No. i6l. with AT.
Reddy as its patron. These two bills wVre
taken up by the committee. a dele CATION
| representing each bill appeared before il
and discussed their respective merits for
more than an hour. After these Qelega-
ti0ns retired the committee continued the
discussion for nearly an hour making the
whole time OF discussion about two hours.
! Twelve Of the thirteen members OF the
committee We're present at this meeting.
Both the patrons OF the bills are members
/ OF the Committee on Counties, Cities. and
/ Towns, and favored the committee with
/ their views concerning their respective
measures. At the end OF the discussion
the vote was taken on the bills without
any objection from the patron OF either
bin. which resulted in the MaupIn bill
being reported fayOTably by the vote Of
10 > dt being unnecessary for the chair
man Of the committee TO vote. The
| Reddy bin was reported with a recon-
| mendation that IL do not pass by a SINH
lar vote. When the bills came up in the
House for consideration a motion was
made to recommt them. and II was urged
as a reason that there were persons who
wished 20 appear before the committee
and be heard This motion was defeated
| but pending ne deb..e On the bills tie
I aIt nj Aa IN "a y
the motion to recommit being renewed.
opposition TO the recOmmttal was with
drawn and the two bills were sent back
to the committee.
BOTH SIDES HEARD.
ON Monday. the 9th day Of January.
1886. at $3.50 p. NJ. after a weeks adver-
tisement and notice Of the time and
place of meeting. a hearing was granted
TO all parties interested i'm the passage
or defeat Of the bills. There was a very
large attendance present, enough per-
sons to nearly I'M the Hall of the House.
where tho committee sat.
-Four hours were consumed i'm the dis
cussion. At this meeting of the commit
tee there were eleven members present
at a part OF the discussion. but two of
these were compelled to leave before the
vote was taken, leaving nine present.
a reversal OF the former action of the
committee. and the report OF the Reddy
bill fayorably by a vote of ) to 4, and the
report OF the Maupin bill with recon-
mendation that IL do not pass. by the
same vote. The undersigned members OF
the Committee on Counties, Cities. and
Towns deem il their duty 10 submit in
. their report on these two bills
In view OF the fact that the discussion OF
t...l L.
interest and the subject seems 10 have
attracted attention all over the State OF
Virginia.
/. we are OF the opinion that House
Bill No 100, known as the Maupin bill
should pass; and,
,. That House Bill No. l6l. and the sub
stitutes therefor, should not pass.
While some of us were not present wher
the vote was taken yet we were present
a greater part of the time when the msa
sures were under discussion. and in add
tion we have given the matter careful
thought and serious consideration, anS
feel that We can safely express an opin
ion on the subject.
IL Is urged by gentlemen opposed TO th'
Afaupin bill that IL does not prohibit win
ter racing. and yet they argue strenuousl,
that If IL is passed Il will break up racinl
IN Virginia entirely. and thus destroy thu
industry OF thOroughbred-horse raising
Surely II the bill viii abolish racing en-
tirely, as these gentlemen contend 1t will
prohibit winter racing But II this bill
viii not prohbit winter racing there i
nothing TO prevent this General Assembl,
from enacting a measure that WILL II sucl
law is needed.
A QUESTION OF IMPORTANCE.
This Is an important and serious ques
h1N
crlDple any Industry In our State. espe
cially an Industry in which the farmer
are interested The agricultural citizen
OF our state are the most worthy and loya
neopIe we have They ask no privilege
from the law-makng department OF on
government. they receive perhaps les
attention than they deserve from tha
source. yet they pay larger part OF IN
revenue 10 support the government, an
we would feel indeed that we were i'm
posine a hardship on them, and doin
great Injustice to them. If we enacte
any law that was oppressive. But doe
). the Naupin bill do this? Permit US to ca
}. the attention of the House to the fac
2 that the farmers are now organized, tina
I they are as intelligent as any other clas
I ~ citizens OF the Commonwealth. tha
n thew have their agricultural journals an
: periodicals. that they read the dali
papers. that large majority OF IN
members OF this House owe their electlo
TO agricultural constituents. and yet ns
a single farmer came before the commit
- tee TO protest in the name of the farmin
r interest against the passage OF the MAJ
y pin bill. II its passage meant disaster
$ their business some intelligent farmer
5 Virginia would have discovered II an
e made the fact known TO the COMMITTEE
IL Is needless for Us to remind the Hou:
that great injury has been done to II
fair name Of Virginia by the lawlessne.
that has been carried on in certain par
D - kar borders In must arouse in n