Arizona republican. [volume] (Phoenix, Ariz.) 1890-1930, 1915-05-23
REPORT OF CONFEREES
CONTINUED from Page One)

CONTINUED from Page One)
to be submitted to both houses.
The report was read but it was not
understood; it was shown that the SEN
ate had receded from its views with
respect to certain sections and sub
visions and that the house had receded
as to others. Here the senate had in
sisted and the house had concurred and
vice versa But it was not explained
what the various sections and sub -di-
visions SO numbered referred to, so
that the members generally We're not
enlightened
More Light Demanded
Accordingly, soon after four o'clock
n recess was taken by the house for an
hour ut the end of which the reading
of the bill by sections was begun with
the reading of the agreements of the
committee. 1t was then quickly made
plain that the task would not be a
short and easy one for when the sec
ton relating to the land commission
was reached the house by nearly two
thirds of its membership voted not to
accept the report of the committee as
to that section. objection was made
both to the smallness of the senate ap
fof tilt- COIilllllSSlOH anu "
that clause describing the personnel of
the land board as consisting of the
governor, the attorney general and the
state engineer with the powers of sur
veyor general 1t was then decided to
attempt no more for the day; night
session would avail nothing 1t was
evident that if this agreement failed to
pass many others would also fail.
What will happen on Monday morn
ing is uncertain: The reading of the
bill will be finished and either a new
set of managers viii be appointed or
the present house conferees win be sent
back to the conference with inStruc-
lions as to the matters in which the
house then refuses to concur. Some
are hopeful that the end may he
reached as early as Tuesday but in the
opinion of others. a deadlock of uncer-
tain duration is imminent.
Some Points of Agreement
II is impossible to describe in detail
the contents of the conference report.
One thing conceded by the house con-
ferees was the Goldwater amendment
declaring that no veto by the governor
should have the effect of reviving a
statutory appropriation. Mr.. Powers
had objected TO this as an interference
with the constitutional powers of the
governor but at last he yielded on the
theory that the amendment would be
of no force anyhow.
The senate accepted the apprOpria-
ton OF the house for the salary of the
| secretary to the governor of $4,000 a
year The appropriation for the other
help of the tax commission was a
| compromise. $4,000 for two years in
stead of $4,000, the amount allowed by
/ the house. The house conferees ac-
| cepted the appropriations for an en-
cheering and mining building for the
| university at a cost of $4,000 and a
| dornitory for the Northern Arizona
Normal school at a cost of $4,000.
Board of Pardons Resolution
In the morning session of the house.
Mr.. Flanagan, who had given notice
| the DAY before of a motion to recon
i slider Tie vote by which the resolution
| requesting the board of pardons and
| paroles to recommend a reprieve for
! the five condemned men at Florence
| offered his motion but a motion to ad-
| journ was interposed and carried In
the afternoon, after the disposition of a
| special order providing for the pro-
| cedure in handling the report of the
4
| renewed his motion when Mr.. Pinkley
| offered an objection which had some
| thing to do with the burden of proof.
| Mr.. Pirkley quoted the house rule that
| within the last seven days of "A ses-
| sion. motion to reconsider a vote
+, must be offered on the same Legislative
| day the vote is taken. To this Mr..
| Flanagan replied with the question
who could tell whether the session was
| within seven days of its end. Mr..
| Pinkley replied that it should devolve
| upon Mr.. Flanagan to show that the
session would not end within seven
| days. The point of Mr.. Pinkley was
overruled and the motion to reconsider
| went 10 vote and was defeated. IA to
| Il. There were several changes in the
| lineup since the day before. Mr.. Blu
chanan, who had supported the reso-
luton voted to reconsider. Mr. Lines
voted against the motion, though ii
was understood that he would oppose
the resolution. Mr.. McClain, who had
been . vigorous opponent of the resO-
luton also opposed the motion on the
ground that the subject was one with
which the house could properly have
nothing to do.
To the Editor of the World
During the forenoon and afternoon