The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1903-02-05
Continued from page one.

81 den NATHANIEL Greene TO make re-
port. with an accompanying report OF t,,sit ,te
expenditures OF moneys oy the ooniiiii'
tee. Finance committee. -,
Mr.. Carroll. by request, presented biil
repeating chapters 1887 and loS5 OF lns le
General Laws relating TO the issuance ss eeol oL
uquor licenses, under option by the Peo-
ple at Block Island, together with an &c
companying petition. signed by james T.
Mitchell and others. Committee on spe-
Mr.. McHugh presented. by request, a
hll regulating the practice OF ir parDerlu5 SrnnS
IN Rhode Island The oil a,op onHeps Conn. tfTn.
mittee on special legislation.
The calendar was then taken UP.
bin amending the charter or, OK the o9ma1y Mempoy'
changing the name 10 the Newport ana
Providence Railway company. was
h passed.
JOINT RULES ISSUED.
A resolution to adopt Joint rules and
"A orders and an accompanying al aine.e n1s .
next considered:
Joint rule 2S-No BILL act or resolution
providing for the creation or any toipvl g, nv
alton. proposing an amendment 10 any
act OF Incorporation. and no Dill, act OF
resolution proposing an amendment 10
the general corporsuodn, is"s sr1 0i frSne6ise tn
shall be considered or acted upon by
either house unless such act, bill or reso-
luton shall have been introduced on or
before the first Tuesday OF March 1908.
Mr.. Nolan asked II the committee on
rules and orders had considered the
amendment, that Is with reference TO
fixing the time Cor limiting the intro
ductiop Of new corporation business at a
later date than was fixed I'm the proposed
amendment.
Judge Johnson replied that he could
not say.
Mr.. Nolan stated his inquiry was for
the purpose OF ascertainipg whether the
committee had entertained a proposition
OF this kind. He said that there had been
good deal Of criticism OF legislation
which had been passed at the last days OF
the session of last year. He believed that
any business Affecting corporations
should have the fullest consideration
and that all members should have full
knowledge OF the measures which are
being considered. Again. II was his be-
lief that all business should be done be-
fore election. next September. IL the mem
bers so willed II, but before election.
TO CORRECT ABUSES.
Mr.. Mcdonald said the proposed rule
was aimed TO correct abuses. great
deal had been said about the flow OF
oratory on the floor OF the house. but II
was clear enough that Il was the duty
of each member TO fully consider the
business before the house. IL any man
found fault with the consideration OF any
matter. fully and freely. he was not doing
what he should do as a representative
OF the people. II was also fact that
the house had passed, with but brief con-
sideration. the Rhode Island merger act,
an internal piece OF legislation, and IL
was also a fact that the proposed cor
poration law had been presented the
house in the last hours of the last day
OF the session. The rule was intended
20 prevent this being done I'm the future.
Mr.. johnson stated that the commit
tee did not favor the adoption OF the
rule and he stated the reasons, because
II was often that proposed amendments
TO charters OF corporations and because
such business came In late.
A REFLECTION, HE SAID.
Mr.. Ogden did not favor the proposed
rule because II was reflection on the
committee on corporations. OF which he
was a member. He accused Mr.. Nc
Donald and those who had favored the
proposed rule OF playing TO the galleries.
Mr. Mcdonald IN reply 10 Mr.. Ogden
stated that the rule was not aimed at the
committee, but IL was intended to give to
matters OF legislation affecting corpora
tions the full consideration that such
measures should receive. He would
much rather play TO the galleries, he said,
than to the pit.
Mr.. Murphy was Of the opinion that
the rule was a good one. He had no
knowledge OF the proceedings OF the last
session, but a Republican. who was then
a member OF the house. told him that he,
the Republican. has not read and did
not have time 10 read the proposed cor
poration bill presented TO the house
on the last day OF the session. But
since that time the Republican had read
the proposed bill and considered Il to be
monstrosity OF legislation.
Mr.. Mumford believed the rule INSULT
Client. but suggested that Il would be well
10 have limit fixed from the date OF
final adjournment He did not say just
how this could be accomplished.
DOESN'T MEET THE CASE.
Mr.. Mccarthy maintained the general
assembly can adjourn az any time and
that the suggestion OF Mr.. Mumford did
not seem 10 meet the requirements OF
the rule then under considera ton lie
believed that the rule, or n similar rule.
should be adopted that would limit the
time when proposed corporation meas
ures, Involving the granting OF fran
4. chises, could be introduced into the
house.
lie pointed out that there were but /.
s legislative days In April and suggested
E that a limit might 0e made by prohibit
= ing the introduction Of corporation legls.
lation, that is. involving franchises. foi
the last ten days OF the session. n,
suggested that fair limit would be ths
last Tuesday In March. lie suggested IN,
consideration OF the matter be deferred
until next Tuesday until he could hav,
conference with the chairman Of IN,
committee on the Judiciary, Mr.. Johnson
Judge Johnson was willing TO agree Z,
deferring the consideration OF the rul'
were there joint rules In effect. but n,
Joint rules existed and the obligation
Of the state could not be met IN tn
absence OF joint cmomittees. such as tn
Joint committee on accounts and claims
Mr. Fitxgeraid suggested that the pro
posed rule be better amended TO provid
that no changes OF charters of munici
raiities be included I'm the prohibited leg
fs1sffon. lie suggested that an amend
ment 60 that effect be Incorporated int
the rule. He moved that an afnendmen
that provided by tho unanimous cOnsen
of the House such legislation as VA
ccmpatible could be introduced into tn
&0u&e. The amendment was seconded