The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1911-02-07
THE STATE FAIR

Present indications are that the
legislature is going to put the cart
before the horse in considering the
establishment of a state fair. Instead
of deciding just how much money the
state can afford to put into a fair for
a starter and then deciding on the To-
cation of the fair, it appears that the
legislature is going to consider the
respective merits OF the three state
fair bills now pending before it, and
select the one that seems to be most
advantageous to the state.
These bills provide for the location
of the fair either at Wichita, Hutchin-
son or Topeka. Each one carries a
different sized appropriations, and des-
ignates the value of the existing fair
properties in each of the cities which
will be turned over to the state in re-
turn for the location of the fair. Both
the Hutchinson and Wichita PROPOSE
tons contain promises that their re-
spective localities will issue this much
and that much in bonds for the pur-
poses of the fair. But there is nothing
of stability to these promises. Such
bond issues can only be provided after
they have been voted on by the people
of those communities, and it is bare
ly possible that the people of Reno or
Sedgwick counties would not feel the
necessity of voting such bonds, if their
town should be chosen as the state fair
center. Nor must it be forgotten that
the people of Reno county refused to
vote bonds year ago to purchase new
property for the location of the
Hutchinson fair.
On this score the Topeka PROPOSE
ton is on firmer footing. Shawnee
county has already voted $4,000 in
bonds to assist in the development of
the Topeka fair. Nor in any other
details can the propositions submitted
by Wichita and Hutchinson be COM
pared favorably with the one which
has been presented by Topeka. Neith-
er the fair grounds at Hutchinson nor
Wichita approach those of Topeka in
any particular. And as for valuable
equipment already on the grounds,
Topeka is in a class by itself.
1t is not likely that the Wichita
claim will receive much attention
from the legislators, because the
Wichita fair for the past few years
has amounted to scarcely anything
that is not much of a nucleus on
which to build a state fair worth
while. So, in all probability, the con-
test for the fair will narrow down be-
tween Hutchinson and Topeka In one
most important particular Hutchinson
has mighty weak claim as against
the capital city of the state. Mr.. A. l.
Sponsler, secretary of the Hutchinson
fair association, admitted this at the
annual meeting of the stock breeders
of Kansas which was held here a
month ago, although he probably did
so inadvertently. Still the argument
he presented is undeniable. He said
that to make an agricultural exposi-
ton as successful as possible, it ought
to be located near the largest possible
| center of population. He pointed out
| that the fairs in other states which are
the most successful are located in or
near the larger cities of those states.
And on this score, how does the popu-
| lation of Hutchinson-16,0 00-com-
pare with that of Topeka-43,00O If
Wichita's past performances in the
fair line were of the kind on which a
state fair could be put in operation in
one season, her claim for the location
| on the score of population would be
paramount in a way. But the differ
ence in population between Topeka
and Wichita is trifling when compared
with the difference in population be-
tween Hutchinson and Topeka