Washington standard. [volume] (Olympia, Wash. Territory) 1860-1921, 1905-03-03

and maintenance Of the capitol in this
city; the net result of these efforts
being the building now occupied,
We have incurred warrant in.
debtedness in the construction, and at.
tempted construction, of capitol build
ings in the sum of 1876, 1879 OF
this amount, Y24 ,390SS has been re-
deemed. There remains net in
debtedness in the sum of SOL, 1921,
on which there is an annual interest
charge of S26,974.47, to be paid from
the common treasury under the stipu.
lation, however, that the aggregate in
terest charge shall ultimately be re
placed from the proceeds OF the sale of
public lands donated by the United
States Government for State capitol
purposes. Before further capitol build.
ing is prosecuted, the people ought to
know what proportion of the cost can
be derived from land sales and what
amount, approximately, is to be
raised by general taxation.
1t would seem from this summary
review that this question has been
amply submitted to the people al
ready and it is also apparent that it
has been so thoroughly settled and
adIudicated by the people and differ.
ent legislative bodies that a rehearinp
Is now absolutely unjustifiable. In
the face OF the record set forth, is it
not pertinent inquiry to ask why
this Legislature attempted to bring
about a reversal of the policy and acts
OF it's predecessors? What is the reason
for this sudden and precipitate change
OF front? The various measures that
have heretofore been enacted by the
predecessors of this Legislature re-
celved the ratification and approval of
the people. Why have not the advo-
Gates of the capital removal project
come out in the open and favored us
with some good and substantial rea-
son for this sudden reversal of attitude
and policy? Why are the people
not given a good and sufficient reason
Tor the necessity of again incurring an
enormous expenditure in the construc-
ton OF the capitol building? What is
the reason for the sudden impulse
that has apparently taken possession
OF the legislative mind to lay plans for
another capitol building coincident,
practically, with the completion and
acceptance of the building we now
occupy? The people are entitled to
know why those who have heretofore
favored the city of Olympia, as the
capitol, have suddenly changed their
minds. Is it not true that the pres.
ent building now occupied by the
State officials and the chambers used
by the different branches of the Legis-
lature afford comfortable and CON
venient quarters for the transaction of
public business? Ordinarily no one
ought to question the wisdom of sub.
uniting any question to the people who
constitute the court Of last resort on
all questions of public policy. A
legislator or executive who favors the
submission OF a question of such i'm
portance as the one involved in this
bill, ought to be willing to stand up
and say. that he is in favor of capital
removal. The two propositions of
removal and submission are INSOFAR.
able and cannot by subtle distinction
be divorced.
1 am not convinced that the pas.
sage OF the bill herewith returned was
the result OF calm meditation and de.
liberations OF each and all the mem.
bers who voted for il. From the in.
ception of the consideration of this
measure evidence has been constantly
accumulating that this bill was forced
through the Legislature by q practice
bordering close to the line of intimida.
ton and coercion. Members have
freely stated that they dared not CD.
pose this measure and expect to re.
ceive favorable considera ton of meri.
torious bills in which their constit.
uents were vitality interested. The
highest and best interests of good gov
eminent can be best subserved by in.
terposing the executive veto to meas.
ure where there exists in the mind of
the executive doubt as to whether or
not the bill receiving an affirmative
vote was the result OF voluntary de.
liberation on the part OF the law.mak.
ers, even though it be question to be
referred to the electors for their de.
cision. The people are at all times
entitled to express their candid, volun-
tary and honest judgment upon pub.
lie questions and in the selection of
public servants.
l ask that the Legislature be &C.
corded at all times the same privilege
and prerogative.
l cannot, therefore, for the reasons
herein assigned, approve the bill.
Respectfully submitted,
ALBERT Z. MEAD,
Governor.
Executive Chambers, Olympia, Feb.
ruary q, 1905.
Without discussion, vote was taken
on"Shall the bill pass notwithstanding
the Veto"
The vote to pass the bill over the
governors veto was as follows:
Baker, Bronson, Christian, Clapp,
Davis. Hammer. Hunter, Hutscn,
n