Capital journal. (Salem, Or.) 1919-1980, 1921-12-24
DAY SPENT
WRANCLINC
OVER FAIR
Continued from Page one.)

fContinued from Page One.)
question of sending the measure toI
the senate was responsible for the
report being favorable instead of
upfavorable.
The first minority report was
signed by Dennis. Hall. Upton and
Robertson. 1t recommended that
the resolution be not adopted. The
second minority was signed by
Upton and recommended that his
amusement tax proposal be substi-
tuted for the gasoline tax and
Postponement Beaten.
Upton Immediately moved that
his minority report be substituted
and the senate voted his motion
down. Then Dennis moved that
ne other minority report, signed
by the four, and to the effect that
the resolution be indefinitely post
,oned. should be substituted for
HE favorable majority report.
This motion brought the fate OF
The fair program squarely before
the senate, for the adoption OF the
.ninority report meant, as par
!iamentary consequence, the indef-
mite postponement of the resoiu-
tion, 1t meant also that should
the resolution be indefinitely post
ooned no similar fair financing
proposal could be again consider
ed by the senate during the re-
mainder OF the session without
suspension of the senate rules,
which requires twot-hirds vote,
under which 10 senators could
control the situation.
After long and heated debate
the senate took its vote on the
Dennis motion, in effect to indefi-
nitely postpone the fair program,
and defeated the motion, 1e sena-
tors voting not to substitute and
postpone and 13 in favor of the
motion.
Upton Leads Fight.
Upton, who has consistently
fought the fair program from the
iirst, led off on the fight against
it in the senate. The forensic bat
lie PROBABLY will consume the
greater portion of. if not all. the
.fternoon session.
Dennis, who followed Upton,
said that when the road program
vas started the people were prom
.sed that $4,000. 900 would finance
the roads. but, he said. 100000
900 had been spent and the work
was not finished yet. Now, he
argued, the fair people that $6,-
600, 900 will finance the fair, but
he contended that would not prove
true.
Banks followed Dennis. All un-
derstood that the vote about to be
taken meant that there would be
an exposition In 1925, or that the
legislators would go home to tell
the people all the money. the time
and efofrts to promote the fair
had ben In vain.
LaFollette Explains.
Lafoilette admitted he had vot-
ed for the 1905 iaIr appropriation
In 1903 as Banks had reminded
him, but he insisted the state was
not then in debt as at the present
time. He wanted to see the state
built up, he said, but he did not
want to raise taxes so high that
II would drive people away.
Rittner. from the floor. said he
wanted to state briefly why his
district did not wsnt TO go into sne
exposition business. With Europe
broke, the farmers of that coun-
try on the verge of ruin. the cat
tie and sheep industries in bad
shape, the banks loaded with ag-
ricultural paper which could not
be paid, his district believed this
was not the time to go into any
non-partisan league plan for hold
ing fair. The road fund would
have to be built up in order to fin
ish the road program he said, and
eastern Oregon was not getting Its
roads.
Moser Tells Benefits.
Moser said he doubted II Upton
aad heard from all of his constitu-
ents or from a majority. But he
was sure, even If that were true,
the state at large would conclude
they are in favor of the exposition
when they realize what benefits
would come to the state as a result
of the fair.
Jones insisted that the people
had been told there would be nc
tax needed to refund road bonds,
and now the legislature was being
asked to take this money away
from the road fund.
! Let Portland Foot Bill.
Ellis sail let Portland foot the
Coming