The sea coast echo. [volume] (Bay Saint Louis, Miss.) 1892-current, 1897-11-20
STATE SENATOR KldER
Writes a Letter on the Capitol BIZ
and the dovern0r's Veto.

Writes a Letter on the Capitol Bill
and the dovernor's Veto.
To tho Governor and the Legislature OF
the state Of Mississippi:
"Let the dead past bury itsdead. "
And yet, the dead past of the
capitol bill, in Its momentous his
tory of the session of 1897, needs
at least Il passing mention. The
question of new capitol was af-
firmatively decided in the state
senate, and practically settled, so
far rs that body was concerned,
during he regular session Of 896,
and bytacit agreement, rs il were,
between the two houses in the ses-
sion Of 1897, it was left 10 the
house Of representative tc formu-
late measure for legislative en-
actment. From the hour that the
governors message fayoring the
passage of II capitol bill was read
to both houses Of the Mississippi
Legislature in 1897 up to the an
nouncement Of the vote on the
governors veto, was one Of the
most exciting episodes ever rec
orded in tho annals of the state
legislation.
From the initiatory tactics Of the
house capitol committee on the
plan Of the building, down to tho
report on that committee Of the
governors veto, was one of the
hardest pitched mental battles
fought out in legislative arena.
Able arguments by conscientious
lawyers were heard on the merits
and demerits of tho governors
objections, with citation of au-
thorltles as to constitutional pre-
rogative. And it is fattery to
none to say that from the chief
executive of our state down
through the personnel of the
membership Of both houses Of
that legislature, that each and all
were governed by what was CON
ceived to he honest convictions.
Is il not necessary that that dis
cussion should be indefinitely
to the detriment and
injury of the issues il involves?
Is it needful that the state should
be the loser by that extraordinary
session, or that the fruits Of its
should be wilhcred and
lost? Is there such divergence
Of opinion amongst the adherents
and opposers Of the policy of the
governor as to neccssltate n dis
amongst the representa-
tives of The people2 Is there 10
middle ground Of concession and
accomplishment, where the ex-
tremes and the means can reach
an agreement? Are we tho sworn
agents Of legislative enactment, so
derelict in our duties as to defy
adiudicationf Are the points Of
difference SO varied as to leave
us desperate, determined and
unreasonable? Is it not evident to
even u casual observer that the
old capitol building, condemned
ed day by day approaching dis
solution, and in hourly danger Of
falling to pieces? Have there ever
been more than four prominent
questions from which to reach a
determinate conclusion? Hasn't
the question of cost and site
reached a happy denouement of
Legislative government, in an
agreement on the Same, without
executive disapproyal? Would it
be considered bad Architectural
pyrotechnics to leave the question
of q plan to the decision Of
commissioners? Couldn't the
question of appointment Of capitol
commissioners, the fourth and
last obstacle In the way Of new
capitol, be determined by naming
the commissioners in the measure?
All these suggestions and in-
terrogatories, randomly conjec.
tured, materialized and written,
have taken the plth out of the
capitol discussion, and shown US
the plain pathway Of dutiful
obligation. Let the governor and