The Columbia herald. [volume] (Columbia, Tenn.) 18??-1935, 1917-09-14
DID COUNTY COURT
REJECT EXPERIMENT
STATION PROPOSAL?
PROBABILITY THAT THE MAT
TER WILL COME UP FOR CON.
SHERATON IN OCTOBER.
CONSIDERATION Still PENDING
Vote Of Last Monday Was On
Motion "ln Lieu" Which Leaves
Original Question Open For Discus.
sion and Vote.

sion ana vote.
Has the experiment station for
Maury county been killed?
That is the question that is puzzling
some OF the members of the county
court following the action of that
body last Monday when a motion to
approve the recommendation of the
committee to select site failed by
tie vote of II to II.
Although public sentiment admit
tedly is divided on the proposition, it
was not known until after the report
had gone out that it had been killed
that there were so many people in
favor of it and the storm of protest
that has arisen has made it possible
that the matter will be revived at the
regular session of the court in Octo-
Der.
1t was stated Tuesday by a gentle
man who is well posted on parliament
tary procedure that the action of the
court in defeating the motion to ap-
prove the committees recommends.
ton by no means killed the whole
proposition. The minutes of the pro.
ceedings of the court show that a
motion was made to defer action until
October, but before that motion was
voted on another motion ''in lieu" was
made to approve the recommendation
Of the committee. A motion "in lieu"
is in effect but motion to amend,
so the tie vote Of II to II did not
actually do anything but defeat the
amendment or motion "in lieu," thus
throwing the matter back upon the
, consideration of the original motion
, to defer action. But before the orig.
inal motion could be put a motion to
adjourn prevailed, leaving the ques-
ton open for further consideration
without a motion to reconsider and
putting it on the regular order of
| business, or automatically defering
action until the October term.
Another view Of the situation is
that even if the motion to defer action
had failed, the proposition would not
have been killed. for the matter be
/ fore the court for consideration was
not the establishment of the expert
ment station in Maury county but the
approval of the report Of the com
mittee to select site. The court had
already voted unanimously to issue
100000 in bonds for the purchase OF
site for the station and the state
committee had designated Maury
county as the location of it, subject
to the sale of the state bonds for the
equipment of the station The issu
! ance Of the bonds is still pending. 1t
now becomes the duty of the court
to appoint another committee or to
| adopt some other method for select
/ ing the site for the experiment sta
. ton.
A further Illuminating aspect of the
situation is that at least three mem
bers of the court have stated since
the meeting that they misunderstood
the motion they were voting on and
thought at the time they voted
for the motion Sin lieu" that they
were voting to defer action. One OF
these members, ]. ]. Pogue, has stat
ed that when he voted no on the mo
ton Sin lieu" to approve the com
mittee's report that the question
would then be put on the original
motion to defer action, but that the
adjournment prevented it. He also
said that he was heartily in favor OF
! the establishment of the experime nj
station.
A number of men who have been
strongly supporting the movement for
the experiment station have become
discouraged and appear to be willing
to chuck the whole matter into the
river and forget it. "If Maury coun
! ty is so backward as to disregard this
great opportunity" said one man. iii
will be what we deserve il the state
committee goes ahead and locates tbs
station in Bedford. Lincoln or some
other county that is anxious to Sc
cure It"
"It will be just our customary
method to lose this great enterprise
and then be kicking ourselves forever