Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1917-02-24
HOUSE REFUSES TO TAKE BACK.
WARD STEP IN EXTENSION OF
STATE HOUSE GROUNDS.
DEFEAT FOR PITT CROWD
IN IOWA LEGISLATURE
Facing Failure, Idea Of Selling Any
Portion Of Tract ls Abandoned Be.
fore Final Vote Is Taken-Further
Fight May BE Mads-on Authorization
Of New Buildings.

Des Moines, Feb. 24.-=What in all
probability is the last battle Of the
long fight for and against capitol ex-
tension, and improvement of the capt.
toll grounds, was fought in the house
chamber yesterday. . !,
The result was victory for the
friends of capitol extension, and a" de-
feat for the Pitt faction in the Iowa
house
1t is now certain that there will be
no action by the present legislature to
sell any portion Of the capitol tract. 1t
Is probabi also, that there will be no
further hindrance to the carrying out
OF the original plan for improvement Of
the capitol grounds under the Mas
queray plan. -S
The battle was staged over the Row
ley bill, which originally contemplated
the sale Of all portions of the capitol
grounds east of East Twelfth street
the tract to be sold comprising abont
twenty one acres. I'll
Abandon Proposed Sale.
The idea of selling any portion of the
grounds was abandoned befor the
III ~ lcSl WE. y SS(cluuSt - auu wv
amendments were proposed each yof
which materially reduced the drastic
nature. of the original proposition.
The first Of these amendments. Of
fered by Representative RUDE Meier
rem Of Hamilton county specified that
all Of the capitol grounds between East
Ninth and East Twelfth street should
be considered as the capitol grounds
proper The remainder Of the property
was to be retained by the state, with
out further Improvements as contem-
plated under the original plan.
: This amen dment was adopted on a
standing vote yesterday morning, but it
developed during the noon adjourn
ment that the bill would not be passed
in this form.
/ Accordingly another amendment was
drawn. being introduced in the house
by Representative Mail. of Taylor
county. which still further moderated
the original Rowley bill.
Hall Proposes Amendment.
This amendment provided that all OF
the original property should be retain
ed, but repealed the section Of the or
iginal law under which condemnation
proceedings may be instituted for fur
Their improvements adjacent to the
present grounds. and also repealed the
present annual stax of. II of a. mill for
further Improvement. OF the original
extension law.
Under the provisions Of the amend
'ment, the executive council was auth
orized to levy q tax for 1917 and 1913
sufficient to raise $4,000 per year for
further Improvement Of the grounds.
Any new action which would be eft TO
succeeding legislatures.
This would have reduced the tax for
capitol extension improvement during
the coming two years by approximate
ly 100000 per year, and the adoption
Of the amendment would have neces-
stated the abandonment Of the Allison
memorial commission plan for capitol
extension Improvement. and also
would have made it impossible to erect
the proposed new supreme court
building and office building from the
proceeds of the capitol extension tax.
as has been suggested. y
1t was upon the, Rowley bill, as
amended by the McFerren and Hall
amen dments that the final action was
taken, which resulted in a defeat of
any attempt to modify the present
law.
Three Change Votes.
A bill must, have ffty-fve votes be-
fore it can pass the house. After the
roll call had bene announced Repre-
sentatives McFerren and Rayburn
changed their vote from aye to no l.,
order to present motion to recon-
slider. while Representative Roy MUIR
ray changed from aye to no as re-
suit Of change Of opinion.
The official vote on the bill there
fore stands so against the Rowley bill
and so for it.
No further action on either the bin
to repeal the capitol extension tax, or
the Ball bill to sell the grounds Is ex-
uected in the senate, in view of the
action of the house. Two years ago 4
bill to repeal the capitol extension law
passed the house easily.
No Backward Steps.
The action of the house for the
time being at least disposes of the
whole capitol extension proposition so
far as any backward step Is consid-
cred. There Is a strong prospect of a
further fight, however, on the question
of authorizing the construction Of new
buildings on the tract. but sentiment
in this respect has not yet been cry
stallized. II It is impossible to recon-
slider, many Of the supporters Of the
Rowley bill are in favor Of going
ahead with the new buildings proposed.
Representative Starzinger, Of Polk
county, who has property adjoining
the capitol extension tract, asked to
be excused from voting under the
house rule which excuses any member
from voting upon measure in which
point Of order was raised by Repre-
sen tative Giltner. who demanded that
Starzinger be compelled to vote. but
Sneakerl Pitt held that Starzinpar waS