The Montgomery tribune. (Montgomery City, Mo.) 1892-1910, 1909-05-14
AGAINST the Amendment,
Not Recorded on Amendment.

obAiNs 1iCN iva
'Melang .............. Jasper Is
~'Prendergast ....St. Louis City 80
%Noted for the tax rider.
For the tax rider Is
Against the tax rider is
Jefferson City.-Straddled by a tax
rider which provides for the doubling
of the rate of taxation, the resolution
on submitting to the people the state
wide prohibition amendment was
passed by the senate Wednesday aft
ernoon by a vote of 90 to s, two SEN
ators not voting.
The senate also eliminated the
clause in the amendment making the
change effective in 1913.
The amendment will be operative
Immediately if adopted by the people.
The resolution now goes to the
house. 1t is generally believed that
the lower body will disapprove of the
plan to increase the rate of taxation,
and, owing to the short time the legis-
lature will be in session, action is
not considered likely.
Dry advocates are much chagrined
by the vote of the senate.
Members of the house said they
would not agree to either of the
amendments. The house is expected
to refuse to concur in these amend
ments and the senate will refuse to
recede, leaving the submission meas
ure up in the air.
Wednesdays battle in the senate
was a surprise to both sides, for
neither had a correct poll of the SEN
ate. The prohibitionists expected a
substantial victory. They figured that
both committee amendments would
be lost. The opposition estimated that
the Conran proviso would be adopted,
but that the tax rider would be de-
feated.
The surprise of the day was the
speech and subsequent vote of Senator
years ago, Numbered for submission,
and then, as at this session, was the
author of the only submission measure
pending in that body that bore the
official stamp of the prohibitionists.
But it developed that he had been
converted to the belief that statewide
prohibition should not be submitted
to the people without a tax rider that
would insure the return by direct tax
alton of the revenue that would GER
tainly be lost in the event of the pro-
hibition being adopted. 1t was only
at the end of a long speech that the
senator expressed this view, and that
gave the anti-prohibtionists their first
genuine hope of a victory, which later
fell easily to their lot.
Most of the speeches were made on
the taX-rider amendment. There was
no debate on the measure after the
two amendments submitted by the com.
mittee were adopted. The debate
took in a wide scope, as usually hap
pens when such questions are under
consideration and the speakers are
not held down strictly to the question
Immediately before them.
Greene Swings the Hammer.
This later argument left a loophole,
which Senator Greene of Kansas City
was quick to take advantage of and
use with telling effect. He contended
that if the people should adopt con
stitutional prohibition in November.
1910, there would no longer be any
power vested in the state, counties or
municipalities to collect dramshop IL
| cense. He made the closing argument
he did not forget to hammer on the
fact that it would be impossible to
collect any dramshop licenses follow
ing the adoption of prohibition, and
and, although he talked considerable
about the evil result that would fol
low in Jackson county and Kansas
City if prohibition should be adopted
that every part of the state would suf
fer, even the dry counties, because
they would be deprived of their share
of school money accruing to the state
from dramshop license.
Those who argued for submission
commended that the people have petit
toned for a fair proposition, stripped
| of all issues a v that OF. constitution
al prohibition. There were yelled &C
cusations made that the liquor inter
ests were behind the tax rider, but
no direct charges of this kind were
made. While the debate was the mos
spirited heard In the senate since the
race track law was repealed in. 1905
yet personalities were not INDUCED in
Senators adhered strictly to parlia
J mentary usages.