Newspaper Page Text
MONDAY, JULY 14, 1919,
Capitol Removal Is Defeated And
~ Macon Knows It
Macon’s effort to remove the State Capitol from Atlanta
has gone up in smoke.
Macon’s Capitol removal organization is DEFEATED
and Macon leaders KNOW it.
They have been dodging -about from pillar to post, try
ing to save their faces; and the only result they can now
hope for is the killing of legislative time for which the
people of georgia ARE PAYING THE BILLS.
The Macon Capitol removal bills were introduced at the
beginning of the legislative session. They were the first
bills on the Senate and House calendars. They were
among the first measures to obtain committee hearing.
They came out of both committees with a favorable re
port. It was announced in both Macon and Atlanta pa
pers that Macon would be in Atlanta more than 1,000
strong on Thursday, July 10, to WITNESS THE PASS
AGE OF THE BILL.
Then like a thunderbolt out of a clear sky, Macon de
cided to put it off. It was first announced the vote would
come the following week—on Wednesday, July 16.
Atlanta Capitol Association leaders said that suited
them, only they would like a still earlier vote if possible—
the earlier the better.
The next thing from Macon was—MORE PROCRASTI
NATION. We are now told that the bill cannot come to a
vote next Wednesday, and, further, no definite date for it
has been fixed.
Thus the matter siands: With Atlanta clamoring for
an early and a final legislative vote, and Macon staving it
off to the last possible moment.
The only reason is Macon is deafted and THE MACON
LEADERS KNOW IT.
For some eight years now, Macon has talked Capitol re
moval. Quietly, subterraneously, Macon worked up this
last campaign; and now when the legislative vote is (or
was) imminent, and they KNOW they are DEFEATED,
they propose to change trom the general vote provided by
the constitution of the state to a white primary.
lU’s just another bid for delay—delay because ihey
know they are defeated and that Capitol removal is DEAD.
Think of it! A white primary to pass on a constitution
al amendment, when the fundamental law itself requires a
general voie of the people!
However, this is not the first time an attempt has been
made to use the white primary as a soft spot on which to
light.
But, whether submiited to the impossible expedient of
a white primary, or to a general vote, the proposed elec
tion would seriously complicate the races of county and
state officers over the whole state. It would involve them
with the ignorant vote, and it would embroil them in a
bitter and acrimoinious campaign from which there would
he no possible escape.
Neither Georgia nor Georgia’s county officers, can af
ford to have this sort of a withering and blighting cam
paign put upon them.
In his presentation of Atlanta’s case before the Senate
and Housc committee on Thursday, July 8, Mr. Robert C.
Alston, well-known Atlanta attorney, put the situation
strongly when he showed that THE EXFPENSE OF CAPI
TOL REMOVAL COULD BE MET ONLY BY INCREAS
ING THE BURDEN OF TAXATION UPON THE PEO
PLE.
The proceeds of the sale of the present Capitol building,
whether sold or not at its real worth, like the proceeds
from any other public property, MUST go to the payment
of the public deb:i. On this point Mr. Alston said :
It is held by the Supreme Court of this state that
even a temporary application of the proceeds of pub
lic property to uses other than the payment of ihe
bonded debt of the state, is illegal (113 Ca. 647;. The
answer made to this is that it is a constiiutional pro
vision and can be changed by a constituiona! amend-
And, So, Macon’s Contention, Like Macon’s Effort, IS VOID AND DEAD.
Let It Rest in Peace--Peace for Georgia for All Time to Come.
- Atlanta Commuittee
| EUGENE R. BLACK, Chairman
THE CORDELE DISPATCH
ment. I believe no more fallacious argument could be
presented. It is just as though 1 had made a note to
you with the condition that the proceeds of the sale
of any of my property should be used to pay the same,
and afterwards I sold my property without your con
sent, and did not pay your debt. Is there anyone who
would defend me against this faithlessness ?
Can the people of Georgia afford to dig deeper into their
pockets, to satisfy one city’s whim, when, as Mr. Alston
says:
It is no time to incur unnecessary expenses to be
paid by the public treasury, which in turn must levy
upon the resources of the individual citizens. The
United States government is now levying enormous
burdens upon the people, which were wholly unknown
to us until the recent war. It must continue to levy
this burden for years to come, for we are now in a
new era, and our obligations are world-wide.
" It is the utmost folly to burden the people with
unnecessary taxes.
Then Mr. Aiston asked how shall we count on Macon’s
performanre of her promises?
The proposed bills, in last analysis, would practically
leave the whole matter of Capitol removal to the voters of
Macon and Bibb county—in fact, to the veto power of the
Mayor of Macon; for, as Mr. Alston stated:
If the people voted for this proposed amendment,
it would not accomplish the removal of the capitol;
something else must be done.
The city of Macon must convey to the state Tatt
nall square, “or other property in said city of Macon
equally suitable for locating or building a Capitol,”
and then,
The county of Bibb must vote and deliver to the
state one million dollars in bonds or money.
Suppose the people of Bibb county refused to vote
the bonds;
Suppose the lity of Macon refused to convey the
land.
. The result would be that the Capitol would not
be removed.
That necessarily leaves the question of the re
moval of the Capitol to less than all the registered
voters of the state, for it is in fact left only to the
voters of Bibb county; or, narrower yet, to the city
council of Macon; or still narrower, to the Mayor of
Macon, who may veto the ordinance of the city
council.
Speaking of the division of the people and the bitter
ness that would attend such an election, Mr. Alston said :
That the people will be divided by ill will and bad
feeling if this election is held, needs no proof further
than the reading of the current Macon papers. There
Atlanta is written of as an outcasi; it is spoken of as
though it were some far-off place, full of enemies of
the state; our businesses are threatened as though in
driving them our of Atlanta, they would yet stay in
the state.
There would be no election for statehouse offices
in which this issue did not become the deciding factor.
_The question would no longer be, “Is the candidate fit
to be Governor, or judge, or commissioner,” ete., but
“Is he for or against the removal of the Capitol ?”
This would reach down to the county offiicers in
the doubtful counties. It would rend the state into
divided camps in this critical period of vital changes.
And, as to keeping faith with Atlanta:
I put it to you that, whether the Capitol was or
was not permanently located in Atlanta, the location
was as permanent as the gift, and the gift as perma
net as the location. As to this there ought to be
no dissent. Atlanta made the donation, which was
accepted by the state, because the Capitol was perma-
nently located in its borders; and, waiving all techni
cal questions, you cannot, in any degree of fairness,
declare that the location was not permanent, but that
the donation was.
Many legislative matters are, in their final an
alysis, judged by the humane conscience. 1 submit it .
to any man of conscience that this bill, as drawn, vio
lates the fundamental dictates of righteousness, for
it proposes to take to Macon that which Atlanta con
veyed, on condition that the location of the Capitol be
permanent.
Discussing the present debt of the state and the crying
need of state institutions for maintenance funds, which he
presented in detail, Mr. Alston said:
How important must be the demands of those who
require the removal of the Capitol! The public
schools must be impoverished; the state’s faith must
be impaired ; the contract with the city of Atlanta
must be declared to be one-sided ; the gift permanent,
but the Capitol not permanent; an enormous deficit
in the state’s revenue must go unheeded ; the pension
ersof the state provided for in a manner unworthy
of a prosperous commonwealth; the school teachers
must remain stunted for the lack of funds; the agri
cultural schools must be left without sufficient funds;
the condition in the asylum must remain such that
those who need attention can no longer ze received
even into crowed wards; they must be turned away.
The criminal and the innocent insane must continue to
be rocmed together. All that Macon may have a Cap
itol sitting in its limits.
Shall Georgia strike such a blow at the state? Mr. Al
ston asked:
It is known from one end of the land to the other
as the Capital City of Georgia. If it is removed some
reason for its removal must be assigned to the world.
What can that reason be? Its location is healthful;
the city is prosperous; its people are contented; the
city is performing its duty to the state and to the
nation; it is the center of the railroad crossings be
tween the Northeast and the Southwest, the Northwest
and Southeast; it is the leading city in the Southeast.
No reason can be assigned for the removal of the Cap
* itol which would not likewise be a reason for detract
ing from it as a commercial center. No good reason
can be assigned for the removal of the Capitol which
is not likewise an argument for removing every head
quarters organization within its borders; and to re
move them from Atlanta is to remove them from the
state of Georgia. It is impossible that those who have
the welfare of Georgia at heart will, upon final test,
injure this city, for, in striking her, he strikes the
state.
And, in conclusion, Mr. Alston showed the act itself
would be void, even if voted, because it could become oper
tive only upon a contingent performance by a third party.
Citing the decision of the California Supreme Court invali
dating the legislative act which sought to remove the cap
itol from Sacramento to San Jose, Mr. Alston said:
The constitution of California provided, in prac
tically the same words as ours, that, if the proposed
amendment be ratified by the people, it “shall become
a part of the constitution.” The court held that the
proposed amendment would not become operative
upon its approval by the people because other condi
tions were to be performed before it did become oper
ative, and that “the Legislature was not authorized
by the framers of the constitution, nor do the terms
of that instrument permit it, to propose any amend
ment that will not, upon its adoption by the people,
become an effective part of the constitution; nor is it
authorized to propose an amendment which, if rait
fied, will take effect only at the will of other persons.
or upon the approval of such persons of some specified
act or condition.”
It therefore held this submission to be void; so
is this bill void.
THREE