Ottumwa tri-weekly courier. [volume] (Ottumwa, Iowa) 1903-1916, 1913-06-17

bill was introduced leading up to the
measure till long after the time FOL
introduction Of bills in the regular way
was passed. In fact it was introduced
as committee bill on April 3 by the
committee on appropriations in the
house, was printed in the house jour
nal Of that date and afterwards made
special order Of business for April
Is. The time for special order having
arrived, the measure was called up, an
amendment offered which was adopted
following this another amendment Of
fered was lost The previous question
was then moved, this motion prevailed,
the effect Of which was to shut off de-
bate, and on motion the bill was
passed to its third reading when 1t
passed the house by vote of 50 to
IS, eleven members being absent or
not voting. The bill having passed
the house, was messaged to the senate
where it was received when the senate
convened for the afternoon session at
1880. as shown by senate journal OF
April s, at page 1916, the bill not
having been held in the house, after
tits passage, till the succeeding legis-
lative day as is customary, before be-
~. Carried In Senate. .
Near the close of the senate session
in the afternoon of April 8, as shown
by senate journal Of that date at page
1874, unanimous consent to consider
the bill, house file $50, was asked; to
this, objection was made but motion
that the bill be considered at this time
carried. The bill was then read third
time and on motion the rule by which
bill could not be read a second and
third time on the same day was sus-
pended, this motion carried and the
bill placed on its passage relieving. "a
votes, 6 voting no and ten are recorded
as absent or not voting.
The bill having passed motion to
reconsider the vote by which house
file $50 passed the senate and to lay
the motion to reconsider on the table
was made. This motion prevailed, the
effect Of which is to prevent recon
sideration Of the vote, and Is rule
Of parliamentary practice not generally
used, and only used where 1T Is feared
ia vote TO reconsider a matter may
prove disastrous, and may result In its
defeat after once having passed, \or
having been defeated, to prevent Its
passage, as the case may be.
+ Webbers Objections.
My opposition to this measure is
based on the following grounds:
First: 1t Is an unwarranted expendi-
ture of public money for purpose,
largely unnecessary. Our state cap
ital building is one of the most preten-
tlous in the entire country, and visit
to it and comparison with others Will
convince one that it's setting now Is
among the very best In the United
States, none surpass it, few are its
equal. This being true we should use
for the present in things necessary,
rather than for things beautiful.
Second: The argument. 1T we are
ever to acquire this property, we
should do so now, before it becomes so
immensely more valuable" has no
foundation in fact. The property is
now, as for years in the past has been
only second class residence property,
and such it will remain in the future.
1t will not become business property
even though Des Moines should have a
population of several times what 1t now
has. 1t will not become an expensive
residence district for the reason that
this class OF property Is going farther
tc the west side Of the river all the
time as the business district Of the
city becomes greater the residence
p1 operty close In, which includes this