The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1912-02-03
: Kept and tnv bsss results ob.

H.. ?: zsss and t''e s'ss results OBJ
FsrsAss Ccnssalisaaion.
Mr.. white. Ia attacking the meas
urs. dsclared thai II was nothing
moro nef lsa than the uams old
thing 81 csntsAlisins power ut the
seat Of government, that II was one
Of the same sort OF bills which sought
to concentrate authority until tho
State would he bound by = bureau
cracy haAd and foot. He declared
that the measure rave q power and
patronage to the ONCE which ought
not to exist, In the division OF the
Insurance business among such
agencies as the commissioner Of In
surance might favor. While dis
claiming any reflection upon the pres
emit commissioners, he opposed the
policy proposed in the measure. He
declared that the reason for unrest
throughout the state was just the con-
csntration Of which he complained.
Several Of the members In their
tAlks having referred to tho measure
being In the interest Of concentrate
Ing business In Richmond. Mr.. MontA-
que declared that those who repre-
scented Richmond might sometimes
well wish that the capitol were In
Lynchbury or Norfolk Mr.. White
intsrposed 10 say that he had not
meant TO reflect upon the city OF
Richmond. which would get nothing
out OF. the law, but to the concern
trAtion OF power at Richmond In the
hands Of the State officials here.
Mr.. HARDWOOD expressed dissatisfac-
ton at the continued siurs heard
~ to Richmond. Richmond belong
ed to the state and the State ought
TO love Its capital city. The bill in
question would not help Richmond at
all, he declared
~. Love Would Curb Powers
Mr.. Love. o. Lunenburg. spoke
against the measure. He declared he
would curb rather than add to the
power of the officials He told a hui
morous experience with a hail insur-
ancs company. In which he and
friends OF his through his influence
had taken policies agreeing that the
policies were subject to the consti-
tuition and bylaws OF the company,
which would be forwarded later.
When these were received they found
they were. not insured at all. and
they compelled the company to re-
lease them by threats OF litigation.
Mr.. Montague. OF Richmond. made
the point that this occurred before
tho Office of Commissioner OF lnsur-
ance was created, and that the first
act OF the present commissioner was
to put that company out of business.
The running debate between M. Mon
tague and Mr.. Love caused great
amusement. as 1t came cut that the
attorney for the insurance company
referred to at Inc time Mr. ] owe
and his height boris had settled their
little dincuity with 1t had been
Mr.. Montague himself. This led TO
many racy passages between the two
and the veteran from the free State
OF Lunenburg held his own we'll with
the Richmond attorney, receiving on
one occasion an outburst Of applause.
The House adjourned without settling
the question.
Suffrage Amendment Thursday.
Soon after the House convened
yesterday. at the request of Mr.. Mon
tague the House fixed 1890 O'Clock
on Thursday next as the time for
taking up the measure providing for
tho women's suffrage amendment to
the constitution. He promised thar
hut little time would be necessary
for the disposition If the matter
House bill 81. the administrative
board amendment to the Richmond
city charter, passed the House by
vote Of 81 to /. the negative vote be-
ing cast by Mr.. Throckmorton, OF
Henrico.
At 1880 O'Clock, in pursuance to
joint resolution. the House went
Judge Stafford G.. white to succeed
himself as member OF the Supreme
Court: re-electing Judge 8. B. Witt
judge OF the Husctings Court of Rich
mond; Judge Louis C. Barley. Judge
OF the Corporation Court OF Aiexan-
dria. and Judge A. d. Dabney to the
Circuit CoAxt of Charlottesville. r
w. Peatross was elected to succeed
Judge Aiken. Judge OF the Corpora
ton Court of Danvtlie.
Want More OfIicc Room.
Joint resolutions proposed ny tie
e. nate were read to appoint a CONF
mitfee OF two senators and three
members OF the House for each Of
the following purposes: To Investigate
into the feasibility of the purchase
OF the Ford Hotel property from the
city OF Richm ond for the purpose III
erecting thereon later an offlca bui.a-
ing Tor the State anu for an inveatist-
ton into the matter of making iu-
ouiry into the question OF the State
seal, TO ascertain whether or not the
present seal was entirely true I, the
original design. md If not to Fro
cure reproduction OF the correct
design.
A message was received from the
Governor OF Virsini4 submitting the
correspondence II the controversy
between DIR. c. v. Darlington AMI
Penitentiary Boart and passing on 10
the Legislature the requests made
by both sides of the controversy Yor
en- investigation. Mr. Crean,er. of
Richmond asked that the House bs
furnished with copies Of the .psei-
locations accompanying the recer,
advertisement OF the Prison Board
for the hiring cs tho convicts at tho
State penitentiary.