Bismarck weekly tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1884-1943, 1899-02-24
That Omaha Exposition Appropria-
ton

Colonel Lounsberry makes the follow
ing statement in explanation of the state
ment made in the house that the lcgis-
lature met in joint session two years
ago and refused to make an appropria-
tion for the Omaha exposition and the
following facts are cited
A committee consisting of prominent
citizens of Omaha, members of the
board of trade at Minneapolis and st.
Paul, came to Bismarck and requested
an opportunity to lay the facts in rcla-
ton to the proposed exposition before a
joint convention, and this courtesy was
paid them. There was an old time news
paper man, formerly OF Sioux City and
later of Sioux Falls, accompanying the
party who made the great speech Of the
OCCASION and the result Of the Joint con-
vention was to appoint committee to
prepare a bin for introduction. They
took no action upon the matter beyond
this.
One B. It. Tracy, formerly of the
Omaha Bee, now OF the Boston Trans
cript, then of the Langdon Republican,
had in his possession a copy OF the bill
this party had prepared for the purpose
Of suggesting the form Of 4 bill they
wished introduced. This lie gave
to Senator LaMouGc and requested its
introduction and this was done without
the knowledge or consent Of the special
committee appointed to prepare the bill
or OF the friends or the measure. This
bill carried an appropriation Of $4,000
and provided that the expenses of each
Of five commissioners should be paid to
the extent OF 81 ,OCO each.
This bill ia the form introduced was
never considered excepting in the SEN
ate committee on appropriations and
when it came for consideration in the
house carried no appropriation, there
fore neither the senate or the house ever
passed upon the question either formal
II or informally as; to an appropriation
for this purpose.
But both houses did pass Il bill which
became a law declaring that it was very
desirable for the state to participate in
said exposition by an adequate exhibit
natural wealth OF the state and it was
enacted that the state participate. 1t
provided for the commission authorized
them to employ and pay help, and for
the expenses, providing that no expense
amount contributed for the purpose.
commission should go ahead, in view Of
nj ~ 30 al
treasury. and secure the necessary con
corporations and report the facts to this
legislature when an appropriation would
be made to cover the expenses actually
incurred. The governor urged this course
and many of the public men OF the state
also attention being called to the action
taken by the territory under similar
circumstances when $4,000 was refund
ed which had been advanced by coun-
ties. Minnesota was also acting upon
the same lines and as a matter of fact
has refunded $4,000 contributed by its
citizens for the purpose Of making its
exhibit, which did not attract more at
tention than that made by our commits
sion on behalf of this state at ono tenth
the cost, or do the state more good.
Iuc COluL1lSSlO1 ulu IlOI cACcclt Cuc
contributions made and now asks that
those contributions be refunded. The
only salaricd person connected with the
exhibit was Miss Ford, who received $50
per month and expenses. There was not
another person on the ground who did
as good or as much work as she for less
than SlO0 per month. Her pay was en-
tirely inadequate and as urged by the
governor it is right and just that she
should be paid the sum proposed in
Senate Bill No. 26. There is not dol
lar mentioned in the contribution of Mr..
Barrett or others that was not actually
paid for necessary or legitimate ex-
penses. There was not dollar of this
money used for salaries except to Miss
Ford, as stated.
a The vouchers showing how the money
was expended are on file in the Office of
the secretary of state. The contributions
were given and received and expended
in the belief that the expenses, being
reasonable would he annrnyed hx the