OCR Text |
Show Dailey, Dean, Gundry, Hawley, Johnson, John-son, Luther, Lyman, Merrill, Miner, Pace, Peterson, Richards, Simons, Spencer, Strlngham, Thompson, Tol-ton, Tol-ton, Wilson 24. CRO MAR'S BILL FOB INSPECTION OF BOILERS . BEATEN IN HOUSE. Cromar's H. B. No. 30, providing for ! boiler Inspection, took up the greater part of Wednesday's session and was defeated oijly after a two-hour fight that became heated at Intervals. The bill waa a rpeclal order for 3 o'clock and when it cams up for final I consideration Cromar opened the debate. de-bate. He said that he had been asked by people in all parts of the State to present such a bill and believed tbet it was for the best interests 'ind safety of i all who work o round boilers. He gave figures showing that In Colorado, where v- such a law Is at present In force, the act, instead of being an expense had netted the State over all expenses more tham $1200 a year. l " JAsph asked whether It would not bo I posWiblti for such cities as F.urekn, Park City and Bingham to appoint their I own Inspectors regardless of whether I . the Slate had one or not, .ind said that " it was a physical impossibility for one man to Inspect 900 boilers' a year. Mr. Cromar replied that his bill expressly exempt M cl'ies that bad their own Inspectors. In-spectors. Cromar also said that the salary was high enough for the Inspector Inspec-tor to appoint a deputy it he wanted to do so. Tolton objected to the bill on the ground that It would be an expense that the Sla:e was not In a position to meet. Gundry opposed the bill because he said that the tafetv ol a boiler depended ii;ore on the knowledge of the ojerator than on annual inspections. Merrill was against it because he said that the safety of a boiler depended, more 014 tl.e knowledga of the operator than ox: Annual An-nual Inspections. Merrill was against It because he said that there was no do- mnnd for such a law among his constituents. con-stituents. Roberts moved to amend by reducins the salary from $2000 to $1500 a year. The amendment carried. Tolton then moved to strike out the enacting clause, but this was lost by the following close vote: Ayes Allen. Carroll, Chrlstensen, Oottam, Curtln, Gundry, Johnson, Luther. Lyman, Merrill, Miller, Pace, Peterson, Richards, Simons. Spencer, Stewart, Strlngham, Thompson, Tolton L'0. Noes-Anderson. A. V.; Cromar, Dailey, Dean. Edward, Fishburn, Haw-ley, Haw-ley, Hone, Hopes, Jones, Joseph, Kinney, Kin-ney, Kuchler, Mauarhan, Marks, McCrea, Mc-Crea, Pancake, lioaiau ts, Stookey, Wilson, Wil-son, Hull 21. Kuchler spoke for the bill, as did Hone. Thompson was against it. Cromar closed the debate by presenting present-ing figures from Colorado showing the good done by boiler inspection. He made a strong plea for his bill which was defeated by a vote of 17 to 21. The vote follows: Ayes Anderson, J. A.; Cromar. Toward, To-ward, Fishburn, Hone, Hopes. Jones, Joseph, Kinney. Kuchler, Marks, McCrea, Mc-Crea, Pancake. Hoherts, Stewart, Stookey, Hull 17. Noes Allen, Anderson. A. V.; Cnr- roll. Chrlstensen. Colts m, Curtin. |