THE COAlPTKOJLEtt HJULIi TO
DATE
By FOREST J. HUNT, Senator
from First Division.
It is known by lliose familiar
witii tile trend oi political events
in tins section tiiut the, so-called,
Comptroller Bill lias been, in va
ried terms, buiore tlie past Lliree
sessions 01 tlie Alaska legislature.
At iirst little public interest was
shown buL us its nature and pur
pose became more generally under
stood, its provisions tor a more re
presentative term oi government
grew in tavor oi tlie general pub
lic until it was hoped that, with the
convening of ilie last session, aome
sucii measure vv ould be enacted in
to law but “Tile beat laid plans of
mice and men oft gang aglee,” and
thus it was witli tne proponents oi
this bill. Senate Bill isio. 1, known
as the “Controller Bill” was intro
duced by Senator vv ill A . ttteel, as
soon as the Senate was organized
for work, and was referred to the
committee on linanee, of which he
was chairman. Senator Frank Al
drich had twice introduced a simi
lar bill, both oi which were defeat
ed in the senate; the vote in the
iy25 session being us follows, to
wit. Ayes, Aldrich, Brown, Dunn,
and Hunt; Nayes: Ayers, Dimond,
Howard and Pratt and thus it was
lost by a tie vote.
“HOWARD PROMISES”
Prior to the organization of the
Senate of the late session, Senator
Howard, unsolicited by me, stated
that although he opposed this meas
ure previously, lie intended to sup
port it at the coming session and
as Senator John W. Dunn had been
with us before, we confidently re
lied upon his support. In looking
back over the situation I think that
if we had shown the political as
tuteness of the opponents, Senator
Dunn could have been prevailed
upon to introduce the Controller
Bill and thus it could have passed
the senate, and after events con
vinced me that this was the only
course that would have insured its
passage.
Soon after the introduction of the
bill a hearing was held in the house
chamber for public discussion, at
which the opponents were invited to
declare their objections, but noue
responded; on the other hand At
torney Henry Roden declared him
self as favoring its passage and
made a strong speech in its sup
port; he was followed by Attorney
Grover Winn, who made a brief
talk, endorsing the position of Mr.
Roden; they were followed by De
legate Sutherland who spoke well
and earnestly in support of the bill.
The meeting then adjourned to
a later date, when Judge Wicker
sham made a very comprehensive
speech in explanation of every feat
ure of the bill, as proposed, ami
urged the necessity of its passage,
in order to place in the hands of the
people the power of law enforce
ment delegated to them by the or
ganic act, but which now is illegal
ly diverted to bureaus and appoint
ive government officials.
Until the night before this bill
came before the Senate for discus
sion, on second reading, I heard
nothing to indicate that it would
not receive six affirmative votes; a
then heard that Senators Dunn and
Howard had stated that they would
oppose its passage unless the Gov
ernor were made a member of the
Board of Control. While on second
reading Senator Dunn offered an
amendment t© substitute the Gov
ernor for the Attorney General,
which was defeated by a tie vote
and when the final vote waa taken
the result was four Yeas, Brown,
Frame, Hunt, Steel; four Nayes,
Dunn, Howard, Jensen, Pratt; thus
it was defeated by a tie vote.
After the defeat of the Senate
Bill, the same Bill, which had been
introduced in the House and had
been lying in committee, was taken
up and very materially amended,
particularly, by eliminating the At
torney General and making the
Governor chairman of the Board,
with other important changes which
altered its provisions very much, in
which form it passed the House by
a vote of 9 to 7; in this form it was
sent to the Senate and was met by
an objection from Senator Pratt, ou
the ground that, it was the same bill
that had already been defeated by
that body. Senate ltule No. 29,
states in part, as follows, to-wit:
“When a House Bill is received,
the provisions of which are stated
by a member to be identical with
those of a Senate bill which has al
ready been considered and reported
by a committee of the Senate, such
House bill shall be referred to the
Committee on Engrossment and
Enrollment for comparison,” etc.
instead ot complying with this rule
which would have relieved him of
the responsibility of censure, Sen
ator Howard, as president of the
Senate, chose to submit a lengthy
ruling against admission of the
bill, which was sustained by a tie
vote, which included his own. The
ruling did not effect the linal result,
as the vote that sustained the rul
ing would have defeated the bill.
Thus it was that the Comptroller
Bill went to defeat the third time.
“ THE ISSUE”
The issue is now squarely before
the people and I predict that the
spirit of home government is strong
enough throughout Alaska to insure
the election of a legislature that will
pass this important measure at tin
next session.
I cannot, with selt-rsatist action,
close this article without some re
ference to the combined eulogy and
criticism of my conduct at the last,
session, appearing in the April-May
issue of the “Fisherman,” under
the caption “Mirrors of Juneau.
The eulogy is quite overdrawn, ap
parently to give added force to the
criticism. Following the words of
praise are the following “And
though he be such a man, to Sen
ator Hunt must be placed the blame
for the defeat of the Controller
Bill.” There is no explanation as to
how I caused the defeat of the bill,
which makes it necessary for me to
explain the situation or leave your