Aberdeen Herald

CAPITAL REMOVAL

SENATE PASSES BILL GIVING IT TO TACOMA.

Action Came as a Surprise, but Affirmation Vote Was More Than Two to One-Bill Provides for a Vote at the General Election in 1906.

Olympia, Feb. 3 --The capital removal bill, providing for changing the seat of government from Olympia to Tacoma, passed the senate yesterday by a vote of 26 to 12. The bill came up 24 hours after it had been introduced by Senator Baker. The committee on constitutional revision, at a meeting held in the morning, recommended the passage of the bill and it came into the senate out of order. Senator Baker asked that the rules be suspended and the bill be taken up at once. The motion prevailed.

The last section of the removal bill provides that the change be not made until the legislature shall have made the necessary provisions and appropriations for such removal. Palmer wanted to amend the bill by striking out this provision and inserting a condition that the county of Pierce donate a site and a sum sufficient to reimburse the state for its present building.

Senator Davis protested against the amendment. He said that the city of Tacoma, four years ago offered to donate Wright park as a capitol site, and at the time the deeds were made out and ready to be delivered to the state. He had learned from Mayor George D. Wright, of Tacoma, that the property is still available for capitol purposes.

Senator Davis insisted that the property has so enhanced in value that it is now worth about half a million dollars, being located in the heart of the city of Tacoma.

Not Fair to Tacoma.

Senator Ruth objected to the amendment on the ground that Tacoma was not asking the removal of the capital and the conditions imposed by the amendment would be unfair. Palmer still thought the amendment a good one, but no one else voted with him and the motion was lost.

Ruth made the fight against the bill unaided. He pleaded that the committee had railroaded the measure and had precipitated the fight in unprecedented time. He argued in favor of retaining the capital at Olympia on the ground of good faith with Olympia people, the money of the state invested in the present capitol building and the effect the removal would have on Thurston county. He held that the passage of the bill would depreciate Olympia property 50 per cent. Senator Ruth insisted that the agitation for removal was caused by the destruction of the Olympia hotel. He declared the loss of the hotel has burdened the people of Olympia now more than it inconvenienced visitors. Palmer raised the question of the constitutionality of the act, but Senator Christian declared the bill was good law. Ruth tried to have the bill go over until Monday as a special order, but lost this motion by a vote of 15 to 18.