The Colfax gazette. [volume] (Colfax, Wash.) 1893-1932, 1900-10-05

eral members of that body, and the
same were agreed to without roll call
lhese changes made the bill practically
imperative and altered it radically from
What it was when it had passed the
house. WY
lhe friends OF tbe bill then and there
declared on the floor of the senate thai
the amendments defeated the bill and
Chat they had made it so radical that if
never could be enforced. Senator Crow
OF whitman, one OF the champions of the
measure, himself voted against the bill
on It's final passage, doing so in order
Chat ne might be qualified to move its
reconsideration. The journal shows
Chlrteen votes in favor Of the bill. and
includes the names of some senators who
had opposed the original bill from the
very beginning. The journal further
SHOWS twenty one senator's absent and
not voting.
Inns Is undoubtedly an error. Senator
Frlnk's name is recorded amongst these.
lie was always classed as friend of the
measure and the friends OF the bill in it's
original form as it reached the senate
always counted on his support. He
wanted a reduction and had no hesi-
fancy IN stating so on the floor OF the
senate.
The bill as amended was an abortive
measure and could not have accom-
plished the purposes for which it was
originally intended. On March Z, when
Senator Crow moved to reconsider the
vote by which the Morgan bill had failed
to pass, Senator Frink's vote was cast
IN favor of it's RECOMMENDATION. (See
Senate Journal, page 53S.) This latter
vote essentially determines where his
sympathies lay.
The Helm Bill,
The Helm bill (senate bill No. 56). as
introduced in the senate, was identicallv
the same measure as the Morgan bill
On March 3, 1895, the committee on
corporations other than municipal re-
ported back the Helm bill with the
recommendation that the same be in
definitely postponed. Senator Helm was
a member of the committee and signed
the report as handed in (See Senate
Journal, page 462
Inls report was made, inasmuch as
the Morgan bill had passed the house
and was now before the senate, and it
was the intention that this latter bill
take the place of the former. The vote
on indefinite postpOnement was a tie.
and on motion of Senator Taylor The
bill was laid on the table. page 463)
Senator Helm voted aye on the mo-
tion to indefinitely postpone. (See Sen
ate Journal page 463
senator Frlnk was absent and did not
70
that was investigating affairs at the
Walla WaIla penitentiary. Following
the tabIing Of the Helm bill the Morgan
Dill was taken up and action taken upon
the same as previously stated.
On the next day, following the defeat
OF the Morgan bill, and prior to the time
that Senator Crow made his motion to
reconsider the vote by which the same
was defeated, a motion was made to
take the Helm bill from the table and
indefinitely postpone the same.
The action was simply a matter OF
form, and had no particular significance
for the reason that the motion of Sena-
tor Crows, or rather the right to make
the motion had not been deprived him
under the rules OF the senate. For all
practical purposes the Morgan bill had
been substituted for the Helm bill, and
tha vote to indefinitely postpone the
same was right in line with the recon-
mendatiOns OF the committee Of which
Senator Helm was a member
Senator Frink voted for the indefinite
pOstpOnement; SO did Senator Helm, and
it is Just as fair to hold that the latter
was opposed to his own bill as it is that
Senator Frink was against it. The fact
is, the Helm bill was never factor in
the matter; every effort on the part of
the friends OF reduced freight rates was
devoted entirely to the Morgan bill If
that failed, it then ended the matter for
good. So, if the vote to reconsider the
vote by which the Morgan bill was de-
feated was lost, then there surely was no
hope to work on an entirety new meas
ure, that had hardly been considered by
the senate, and had yet to be taken by
the house. Especially was this apparent,
as there were but few more days left of
the Legislative session.
The only hope left the friends OF the
Morgan bill was to reconsider the vote,
wipe out the Objectionable amendments
and pass the same. In behalf of this
effoIt Senator FriDk gave what assist
ance he could by voting aye.
Session of 1907
Senator Frink voted in the affirmative
on the final passage Of the bill (house
bill No. 410, drafted by the railroad
committee. (See Senate Journal, pages
638 and 647)
Senate bill No. $50, to establish a
railroad commission, was reported by
the committee to the senate March g.
The legislature adjourned March IL:
There were many Objectionable features
to this bill as reported. There was no
time to consider them, and it was
thought best by friends of a railway
commission not to attempt it.
Superintendent Brownies explanation
OF his reason for urging the prepara-
tion and publication of school text
hooks bv local talnnt and comnanias IL