The Lawmaker Who Killed His Own Railroad Bill

OLYMPIA, Feb. 21.—[Special.]—The Hoole railroad and steamboat bill was killed in the house this afternoon, its author becoming its executioner, in order to deprive its enemies of the pleasure of acting in that capacity.

When the bill was taken up in committee of the whole, Hoole rose to speak, and Judson quickly called him to order on the ground that he had spoken twice on the bill. Judson prided himself on his parliamentary knowledge, and yet he attempted to apply the rules of the house to a committee of the whole, when the chief purpose of going into such committee is to permit the utmost freedom of debate, the rules of the house being no more applicable to its proceedings than they are to the meetings of any other committee. Hoole contended that he was simply proposing to continue the speech he was making when the committee rose at the time it had the bill under consideration before. Chairman Ludden overruled the point of order. Hoole argued against the Judson motion to strike out section 9, and characterized the attempt to defeat the purpose of the bill by striking out a vital section as a parliamentary dodge and the "quintessence of babyism." If it was proposed to defeat the measure, he wanted it done in a manly way.

Judson defended the propriety of his motion. He declared that if this "harmless" bill was sent to the senate, that body would pass it and would not pass the other railroad bills.

In support of the bill, Washburn made an interesting speech, which was the principal one on the subject. He said:

He came from a community that had for years felt aggrieved at its treatment by railroad companies. That community demanded legislation relative to railroads, but it also demanded that such legislation be fair and reasonable. It was evident that railroad companies had few friends in this legislature in any party, and he was not himself in favor of legislating in behalf of the companies, but he contended that the legislature should not go too far. The railroad business, he pointed out, was a complicated one, and he insisted that Judson, who wanted fixed rates established by the legislature, was not qualified as fully as he thought he was to deal here with the complex questions relative to the freight and other business of transportation companies. He described as fantastic Judson's argument that because some commissions had proven failures all were bad.

Judson might as well argue, said Washburn, that because some lawyers were shysters, all were shysters; that because some doctors were quacks, all were such; or that because there is one Judson crank, the entire Judson family should be wiped off the face of the earth. [Laughter.] He considered the railroad bills already passed by the house too extreme.

Leo became sarcastic in a speech in opposition to the bill. He admitted that it was true that commissions had proven successes in many cases—successes for the commissioners. He declared that though this bill was represented to be railroad legislation, it was in reality a barrier to legislation, standing between the people and needed relief.

Sallee ridiculed the idea of making the provisions of the bill applicable to steamboats.

Baker and Mays did not break their records by failing to take part in the debate. They closed the discussion, "the rebuke from Garfield" handing down another judicial decision that the bill was unconstitutional.

Hoole had by this time reached the conclusion that there was no hope for the bill, and he started it on the indefinite postponement route to its grave.