The Clarksburg telegram. [volume] (Clarksburg, W. Va.) 1874-1926, 1912-10-24

election. II they were sincere why
would 1t not have been as fair to
submit this question in 1911 as 1t
would be in 1922. This amend
ment was lost by the same identical
vote as was cast on the first amend
ment offered by Mr.. Ice.
After refusing to amend the bill
in accordance with the desires OF
those who were advocating a pri-
mary law, the House passed the
French bill on May II. On May 80,
the same date that Speaker Wetzel
killed the Coffman primary bill in the
House of Delegates, the French bill
came before the State Senate.
Realizing that the House had re-
fused to consider the Coffman bill,
the Republican members of the Sem
ate prepared to support the French
bill If it could be amended, realizing
that it was the only remaining
chance by which primary law
could be secured.
Leaving the chair, President Hat
field, from the floor of the house.
presented the amendments asked by
the Republican members OF the SEN
ate. Each amendment offered by
the Republicans was rejected by a
strict party vote. The two princi-
pie amendments asked were the
elimination OF the referendum and
Acknowledgement provisions. The
Democrats refused to allow these
provisions to be stricken out.
The fifteen Democrats in the Sem
ate voted for the passage OF the bill
and the fifteen Depublicans against.
Accordingly the bill was rejected.
Democrats Defeat Primary.
Even at this late hour it was
shown that the only difference which
made the enactment of a primary
law impossible was the referendum
clause and Acknowledgement pro-
| vision. 1t is a matter of public rec
ord that the bill could have been
passed with these provisions elimi-
mated. President Hatfield made
open announcement that he would
support the measure with these pro-
visions eliminated, while on Page 80,
OF the Senate Journal OF May so,
1911, is recorded the following:
Mr.. Smith (of CabelD: Mr..
President, rise to question Of per-
sonal privilege and would like for
my remarks to appear in the journal
of this Senate. In my remarks this
morning upon the floor I stated that
if my friends on the other side of the
house would cut two points out OF
the French bill that would support
that bill; those two points are the
referendum and the djsfranchise-
ment. Now, Mr.. President, I want
to renew that offer and state that If
you will cut those two points out
OF the bill, why, gentlemen, will
support the bill in this Senate. l
came here honestly and earnestly
to try to get for the people OF this
state a primary law. For more than
six years i have stood for the Fifth
Senatorial district of the state and
have been telling my people that |
would stand for them, and l want to
stand for them; and 1 am honest
when tell you that 1 will stand for
that bill il you will cut those two
clauses out of 1t. Now gentlemen
it is up 10 you.
Mr.. Grimes: wish to join nv
colleague in the statement that he
has made
Mr.. Kidd: wish to say, in the
first place, that have not found any
acknowledgements clause, whatever, in
the bill, and in the second place,
when Senator Bland offered to sub
stitute the bill the other day with
out the referendum in it. my friends
did not agree to 1t. i am very fond
of my Huntington friend. He and
| have stood together on many occa-
sions and / have always believed in
his sincerity and still believe he will
do Just as he says; but 1T is too late
81 onoomn1iah ANYTHING
Mr.. French: The gentleman says
that if we will strike out the dis
REIMBURSEMENT clause in that bill and
the referendum that he will vote
for it. Now he refused to vote for
it the other day when the referen-
dunn was out. So far as the dis
REIMBURSEMENT is concerned, al
though / do not doubt the sincerity
Of the gentleman from Cabell, he is
absolutely mistaken in his opinion
that there is any Acknowledgement
clause in that bill, for there is not.
c,noa tha olnea of the enecial seS-