The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1907-03-02

GOES By BOARD.
State Fair Bill Is Postponed in
the House.
This Will Probably Mean End
of It.
EDWARDS DID 1T.
Greenwood County Man Put 1t
on Sidetrack.
The Final Vote Stood Fifty
The Final Vote Stood Fifty
eight to Fifty-one.

After toying with the state fair bill
most of the day the house OF repre-
sentat ives took action late in the af-
| ternoon which practically kills the bill
when by a vote of So to 81 it adopted
the motion of Edwards of Greenwood
county postponing the further consid-
Grafton of the bill until such a time as
the location of the fair has been de-
cided upon. The bill was the first on the
calendar but was postponed and taken
up shortly before noon and was hav-
ing smooth sailing when the recess for
the noon hour was taken though at
tacks had been made on it by its enc
mics of and on during the discus
sion.
The bill was up for amendment and
debate, had been read through and was
being read by sections and amend
ments adopted, when just before the
noon hour w. A. Morgan of Hodgeman
proposed that further consideration OF
the bill be postponed and that it be
laid on the table. This motion, had
1t carried would have meant the death
of the bill and was lost by vote Of
IS to Al after the enemies of the bill
had resorted to a call of the house
and exhausted every means Of defeat
ing it.
This expression was taken by the
friends of the bill to mean that the
passage of the bill was assured at this
time though some of those friendly to
the bill must have experienced a
change of heart during the noon re-
cess. AT the reconyening of the house
after dinner, consideration of the state
fair bill was again resumed and the
opposition to the bill which was in
evidence during the morning seemed to
have become reconcfled to the fact
that they were in the minority.
AS the bill was read section by sec
ton several important amendments
were made: One of them providing
that the management of the fair should
be in the hands of the secretary of the
state board Of agriculture and anoth-
should deed the site to the state IN
stead of lease 1t for a period of 80
years as the original bill provided.
The bill as amended seemed to sat
opposition seemed to have subsidized
into a state of acQuiescence and no
further opposition was expected by the
friends of the measure There were
few who wanted the location of the
fair decided uponfs before the bill
passed and it was from. these few that
the opposition crystalized and when
the vote was taken on tabling the fur
Their consideration of the bill until the
location is decided upon it carried by
q majority of one vote.
r At any rate this was the announce
ment made by the clerks who were
the count. A roll call was de-
manded by the friends of the bill and
speaker who afterwards .reconsidered
and ordered the roll call which
showed the bill to again have carried
by a majority OF one vote. A call of the
house was then asked by the friends
Of the measure and while this PROPOSE
ion was being argued the enemies OF
he bill got busy and several members
their vote from no to aye, |
giving the motion So votes for the
1ostponement and 81 against it. The |
result of the roll call is as follows:
For ponement-Adams, Banks, |
8eeson. Blaine, Boggs, Boyle, Brown, |
Chatten. Cole, Crumley, Davis. Dennis, |
Edwards. Finley. Fisher, Flanagan
Iaskins. Holden. Jeffries. Kinnison.
lauder, Lennen, McGillivray, Martin, |
Mayhem, Miller. Morgan. Morgan, |
Murphy, Myers, Neihart Oshant Pad
-ett, Patterson, Plumb. Pohlman.
;herer. Sipp1e, Skinner, stockton,
sweeny. Swope, Thompson. Wells,
Simmons. Guyer. TannehilI, I
Against postponement-Arc Ber-
lyman. Bird. Brierley. Clark, Getting
lam Cowan, Craddock, Cunningham,
1urran. Davidson, Dawson, Elstun, En-
light. Ferguson. Gesner Hart. Holdren.
Iusey, Hutchinson, ingalls,. Jones. Kiff.
Lehman, Leland, Leydig,
dercer, Mitchell. Montee, Pomeroy.
Potts. Rail. Ransom, Reynard,
Rhodes, Rich, Richmond Rochester,
aoush. Sheppard, Stannard, Stone,
'tubbs, Tredway, Umholtz. Warren,
Vestcott, Wheeler, White, Woodhouse
81.
The provisions of the bill are such
hat there are but two practical sites
or the fair in the state and it was
from the first that the fight
or the location would be between
Wichita and Topeka and the repre-
entatives of Sedgwick and Shawnee
county led in the fight for a fair. Pit
ed against them were the representa-
ives of counties which hold small
airs annually and who were afraid
hat If the state should be interested
n a state fair that it would fnjure their
ocal project.
Reno county representatives OPP
'osed the bill because they hold 1.-The
state Fair at Hutchinson each year
nd they did not care to take the
on playing an opposition date
o a similar attraction backed by the
tate. Most of the representatives
rom the western part We're against
he measure because 1t would not
enefit their section Of the state and
he cost of the project and on general
principles as one of them expressed 1t.
While the motion which carried yes
erday does not settle the question of a
tate fair there is little hone that a bill
designating either Wichita or Topeka
10 for consideration did not attempt to
ocate the fair at any point but left the
election of the site to a joint session
( the legislature If the bill should