The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1921-02-02
FAVOR CITY BILL
Municipal Ownership Measure
Causes Debate in Senate.
Laing of Russell Cast Decid-
ing Vote.

| Following the monotony of bunch
of ways and means committee bills on
the calendar for Tuesday morning, on
which some time was saved by the
expedient of having them declared
emergency measures so that the SEN
ate might be rid of them and turn
them over to the house, the senate
| rather welcomed a brisk little war on
municipal ownership which was staged
in the afternoon when the Ridgway
bill providing the authority for the
city officials of Kansas City, Kan, to
| take over. own and operate their street
railway system came up in committee
of the whole.
Brought Instant Fight.
The BILL while it applies to Kansas
City. Kan, only, brought an instant
fight out of the men in the senate
who do not believe in municipal own
ership. Finney, of Sumner, was the
first man to get after the bill. The
| reading clerk had barely started when
Finney moved that the enacting clause
of the bill be stricken out.
Ridgway was on his feet to explain
the purpose of the bill and the fact
that it applied only to his city. He
detailed the predicament in which the
citizens of Kansas City. Kan. would
find themselves if they had no Club
to WELD over the company whose
franchise is held in Missouri.
Senator Finley. of Chanute, followed
with sweeping arraignment of mu-
nicipal ownership of all sorts, declar-
ing that he did not believe that any
city should operate any utility, and
asserting that wherever there was mu-
nicipal ownership there was misman-
agement. He characterized the man
agement of the public utilities in his
own city as extremely bungling," and
took a whole-souled swipe at the en-
tire practice.
After another talk from Ridgway.
followed by a vigorous defense of mu-
nicipal ownership from Taylor, of
Hutchinson, the motion to strike out
and the clerk went on with the read
ing.
- Coleman Offers Amendment.
At the end of the reading, Cole
man, of johnson county, who had
asked several questions during its
amendment in regard to the property
holding requirements of voters eligi-
| BILE to decide at the election which
| must be held, whether the city should
! take over the street railways or not.
Ridgway characterized the amend
| ment as a device to render the bill
| Unconstitutional. and there, were sew
eral passages between him and Cole
man.
The Coleman amendment was voted
| down, and the question of the pas
sage of the bill came up, after more
| speech making from both sides.
| The ayes shouted the louder
! when the vote was called for, but the
noes" were quick to call for divi-
sion. A standing vote resulted in a
| tie. A roll call was called for, but
not by the necessary thirteen sena-
\ tors, and the opposition shouted for
mo report on the bill" Some parlia-
mentarian on the other side objected
and pointed out that the chairman
who was Laing, of Russell-should
cast the deciding vote. Laing voted
aye" and the bill was recommend
ed by the committee for passage.
The bill has not yet been acted or
in the house and the recommendations
of the committee of the whole does
not necessarily mean that it will pass
the senate on the final vote. but fur.
Their debate on the bill has beer
stopped by the action of the commit.
tee.
The bill passed the house at the
last session with but six dissentine
votes, and but little fear is entertained
Of its passage there again this term
/