Loading

Governor Walter M. Pierce's Administration

Governor's Special Messages, 1925

Source: State of Oregon Secretary of State Special Messages and Vetoes By Walter M. Pierce Governor To the Thirty-Third Legislative Assembly January 12 to February 26

SPECIAL MESSAGE

January 29, 1925.

Members of the Legislature:

There are several matters of vital importance that I wish to bring to your attention at this time; the first of them that of an urgent emergency faced at this moment by our agricultural interests.

Now that the extent has been measured of the sudden and unprecedented freeze that swept over our newly-planted wheat fields throughout Oregon a month ago, it is ascertained that more than 500,000 acres of winter wheat were utterly ruined. This prodigious misfortune fell upon every county and nearly every field where winter wheat is grown. Added to this unforeseen calamity to our producers was the fact that for several years prior thereto farmers have grown their wheat at a loss. Thus, many of them have their lands and personal property mortgaged for the maximum sum they are able to secure from the small banks in the country, which banks are not able to advance the funds needed to replace that destroyed by the elements. Banking rules and laws appear to make it impossible for the larger central banks to meet this emergency.

It is my judgment that prompt and effective measures by the state are mandatory in meeting this grave emergency. This, I believe, can be accomplished by the enactment of a law by your assembly extending the credit of the state for the purpose of buying seed wheat.

The necessary sums are available from the sinking funds accumulating for retirement of bonds of the World War Veterans’ State Aid Act. I therefore recommend that you give to the Board of Control authority to invest not to exceed $1,500,000 for reseeding purposes, all loans to be secured by first chattel mortgage on the wheat grown out of the loan proceeds and payable, with interest at six percent per annum, not later than January 1, 1926. Loans to be made and collected under rules and regulations promulgated by the State Board of Control and refund to be made to the dinking fund within two years from the date of the law. The cost to the state and losses through this necessary operation will be negligible, while the benefits to our state and to its producers will be inestimable.

The second matter that I wish to present is one upon which I made reference in my message delivered to you upon the occasion of the opening session of this Thirty-Third Legislative Assembly, when I said: “The Public Service Commission should be reconstructed. It would be far better to abolish the commission than to let it continue in its present form. I trust that no appropriation will be made for such continuance.”

By no way of amplification of that statement I wish frankly to state my firm belief that the commission should be appointed by the governor and removable at his pleasure, in order definitely to fix full responsibility for its proper functioning in the public interest, and that furthermore it should be supported by a tax on gross earnings of public utilities rather than by a direct charge to the taxpayers of the state amounting to $130,000 each biennium, the present cost of the commission.

The Public Service Commission at present is elective. The names of candidates invariably appear for down on the ballot. Voters do not always have the time and facilities for learning the record and capacity of the multitude of candidates, or to ascertain what candidates may be subservient creatures of special interests that sponsor their candidacies. As to the recall of those found faithless to the public trust, and which the people felt impelled to invoke upon members of this commission two years ago, such method has failed to correct the particular shortcomings of Public Service Commission administration to which I bring attention.

In this connection I wish to say that the Public Service Commission has often appeared to me as being the servant of the public utilities rather than of the public. In fixing the rates of the Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company, for example, the commission has allowed an excessive valuation on this property and then made the rates high enough to earn dividends upon such excessive amount after also allowing excessive costs of operation.

This is nothing more than a cost-plus plan.

It has come to my attention that the American Telegraph and Telephone Company of New York owns substantially all of the stock of the Western Electric Company as well as nearly all of the stock of the Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company. The Pacific coast offspring of this giant monopoly is obliged to pay four and one-half percent of its gross earnings to the parent company under the guise of “administrative supervision.” The Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company, furthermore, is required by its New York parent to purchase all of its equipment apparatus from another child of the great parent corporation, the Western Electric Company, and at prices in excess of the ordinary market value thereof. Upon such multiplication and pyramiding of costs, the valuations and rates are fixed.

Our Public Service Commission as now constitute, seems utterly helpless in considering the point of view and legitimate interests of the public. The truth of this is emphasized by the decision some months ago in the streetcar fare case at Portland. The Portland Electric Power Company had entered into a contract that was supposed to be binding and through which the company, then known as the Portland Railway, Light and Power Company, agreed to carry passengers for a fare of five cents. In time, the automobile came into common use which reduced revenues from streetcar operations. The five-cent rate agreement was promptly scrapped as an alternative to accepting losses in the manner of ordinary investment, and the fare was increased to six cents by the Public Service Commission and shortly afterwards to eight cents, to overcome reductions in previous revenues.

I invite your attention to the record of our Public Service Commission for some years past which reveals a policy of constant and unremitting increases—increases in telephone rates, in lighting rates, in power rates, in railway rates—in short, in every sort of rates which the public is compelled to pay for service. Not in a single case before the commission in 1924 was there a rate reduction of any kind made in the interest of the public. For such reasons as these I do not favor the continuance of a regulatory body at public expense when its service is to the public utilities rather than to the public.

I wish, finally, in this connection, to add the recommendation that as an additional step towards remedying the conditions I have brought to your attention, you enact a law declaring all telegraph and telephone companies to be common carriers.

I wish again to emphasize my earnest belief that the people of Oregon expect and have a right to expect this legislature to pass laws that will bring about a more equitable distribution of the tax burden.

The people of Oregon expect and have a right to expect that the highway fund will be supplied with sufficient sums to complete the main highway program at an early date.

The people of Oregon expect and have a right to expect that this legislature will pass necessary laws that will enable districts to organize municipalities for the development of hydro-electric power, so that Oregon may offer to her people and industries electric energy at cost. Nothing can be done that will advance the interests of our state so rapidly as cheap electric power.

The people of Oregon expect and have a right to expect that this legislature will enact legislation which will start in real earnest the reforestation of our cut-over and burned-over lands. We have 22,000,000 acres of land in Oregon, suitable only for the growing of timber. The reforestation should be by the state in the interests of all the people, and not for the benefit of a limited class. Trees started now will be ready for the woodman’s axe in half a century. When future generations view the Pacific Coast, may they see not hills denuded of trees, but rather gaze upon growing forests which will enrich and make prosperous a contented and happy people.

SPECIAL MESSAGE

February 16, 1925.

To the Members of the Legislature:

As the governor I deem it my duty at this time to call your attention to matters of grace import to the welfare of our state which demand your earnest consideration during the few remaining days of this Thirty-third Legislative Assembly.

If all departments of our state government are to function properly, more revenue must be provided. This condition is brought about by the repeal of the income tax.

Battleship Oregon Secretary of State

The one-quarter mill road tax and the continuing appropriation for the Battleship Oregon should be repealed without delay. Irreparable injury will be done this great state if you fail to pass a law making it possible to collect the balance due on income taxes for 1923, chiefly owing from about seventeen hundred individuals and corporations, and amounting to approximately $1,00,000. With all these things accomplished, it still will be found necessary to provide an additional sum of at least $500,000 for the coming biennium. The ways and means committee have not been able to change materially the totals allowed by the State Budget Commission. In a few instances reductions have been made; in others the committee has found it necessary to increase the amounts recommended.

Unless provision is made for additional revenue, there can be no building program for the insane, for the feeble-minded nor for the normal school.

In my first message to this assembly I asked for $150,000 for the Oregon State Training School, of which amount $100,000 was to be used to complete the buildings at Woodburn, and $50,000 for remodeling the buildings on the present site into a reformatory. I still believe that this is the best policy to pursue. However, if you find it impossible to make such appropriations, may I then suggest that you appropriate $25,000 additional to maintain a reform school for the larger and incorrigible boys at the present site of the training school, and make no addition to the amount now available for the buildings at Woodburn. However, this will delay for two years the establishment of a reformatory, which is so badly needed. The governor should be given the power to transfer to the reform school the younger men at the penitentiary when it is possible to effect reformation.

Gross Earnings Tax

In my first message a number of sources were suggested from which the state could obtain additional revenue. Your attention is again called to the fact that the state of Iowa is collecting $700,000 annually from a tax on cigarettes. Other states are collecting on moving pictures. Many states are collecting occupational taxes. Minnesota, California, and other states are collecting a percentage of gross earnings of public utilities for the support of their state government. A large number of state are collecting taxes upon natural resources, such as oil, coal and timber, when removed from nature’s storehouse. A number of states are collecting much higher corporation fees than Oregon. The state of California is collecting 2.6 percent on gross premiums of all insurance. Oregon is collecting 2.25 percent. If the state of Oregon collected from insurance companies at the same rate that is now being collected in California, this would bring about $200,000 additional to the state treasury during the biennium after the aw became operative. We are all proud of the insurance companies organized in Oregon, but there is no reason why they should be exempt from paying taxes. Te repeal of this exemption for Oregon companies would add a considerable sum to state revenue.

Ten percent of the revenue collected by the self-sustaining commissions, if paid into the state treasury, would add $200,000 to the general fund during the coming biennium, which would be only returning to the state treasury a portion of the amount which these activities have cost the state in supervision and in the protection afforded them by the courts and the operation of law.

Public Service Commission

One-eighth of one percent of the gross earnings of public utilities would raise more than $200,000 in the coming biennium. If you will enact such a law I will gladly sign the bill which you have passed appropriating $100,000 for the Public Service Commission. In addition to the payment of taxes on their farms and personal property, the wheat raisers of Oregon are also paying a tax upon every ton of wheat for support of state inspection. The fish industry is paying a poundage tax for support of the State Fish Commission. The same just cause exists for taxing public utilities corporations for at least sufficient to pay the expense of maintaining the Public Service Commission. I am still firmly of the opinion that this commission has not always acted in the public interest, and that it should be appointed by the governor and removable at his pleasure. However, I am willing to waive this point if you will so provide the revenue that the cost of maintaining the commission will not continue to be a burden upon property.

Should you fail to provide the necessary revenue for the appropriations made, do not expect me to approve the bills, for I shall be obliged to veto them, deeply as I may regret the necessity of such action. I will not be a party to increasing the tax burden upon the owners of homes and farm property in this state when it is within your power to raise the necessary revenue from sources so easily available.

Deficit Under Present Conditions

Six years ago the legislature appropriated thousands of dollars more than the tax commission was allowed to levy under the sic per cent limitation. This deficit was not wiped out until there was available the excess collected from incomes in 1924. Should you make appropriations now and create a deficit, such deficit must continue from year to year until from some indirect source the revenue may be derived, for the reason that the tax commission will be prevented from making a sufficient levy upon property by reason of the sic per cent constitutional tax limitation.

It will be serious indeed to curtail the activities of either the agricultural college, the state university, the normal school, or of any of the fairs or expositions within the state.

Prohibition Commissioner

George L. Cleaver has been the State Prohibition Commissioner fro almost two years. He has been honest, fearless and impartial in the discharge of his duties. Like any leader of a great cause, he has been severely and unjustly attacked from all sides. His mistakes have been vastly exaggerated. In large measure his good intentions and sterling qualities have been overlooked. However, the enforcement of law is far more important than any individual or party. I have today accepted his resignation as State Prohibition Commissioner, and have appointed William S. Levens, of Baker, Oregon. I ask you to make available for this department one-half of all fines collected for violations of the prohibition law. I know that the prohibition laws are far better enforced today in the state of Oregon than they were two years ago. I know that in a large measure the prohibition department has brought about this condition. It is my earnest desire to make the closing years of my administration notable for law enforcement. The accomplishment of this purpose to any marked degree will be possible only by having sufficient funds. Hearty, earnest cooperation will be given to every sheriff and every district attorney who desires to enforce the law in this state, and I will move unsparingly against officials who are derelict in their duty.

Harmony Desired

It is to be regretted that so much valuable time has been wasted at this session. The reforestation problem has not received the consideration at your hands that it deserves. Hours have been frittered away on minor things, when matters of vital importance should have had your most earnest consideration. Bills looking toward equalization of taxation still slumber in committee. We can retrieve much lost ground by harmoniously working together during the closing days of this session. It is a most unpleasant task to veto a bill, but when I am convinced that a bill is wrong I will use the veto in the future as fearlessly as I have in the past.

You can not afford to return to your constituencies with your task so illy performed as appears at this hour.

In the interest of property owners of this state; in the interest of the coming generation; in the interest of our homes; in the interest of the great prosperity that is knocking at our doors, I plead for cooperation. I plead for legislation for the common good, legislation for economy, for reduction of taxes upon property; I plead for laws that will make available to our people God’s wonderful storehouse of electric energy. In these closing days of the Thirty-third Legislative Assembly may each and every one of us rise above party affiliation, above personal animosities, above selfish aims, and all join in the enactment of such laws as will benefit, not only the especially favored ones, but that great body of honest, hardworking, law-abiding citizens of the state of Oregon.

To the Senate and House of Representatives, Thirty-third Legislative Assembly:

It is my pleasure to submit to you a report of a conference of representatives of North Pacific ports, Crescent City, Chetco Cove, Port Orford, Bandon, Coquillle, Coos Bay, Umpqua, Siuslaw, Alsea, Yaquina, Tillamook, Nehalem, Grays Harbor and Port Angeles, assembled in Portland, on January 16 and 17, 1925. With this report will be found a suggested memorial to the congress of the United States from the Legislative Assembly of the State of Oregon.

I recommend your immediate adoption of this resolution and its early transmission to congress now assembled in Washington, D. C. It is particularly urgent, as the present congress will adjourn permanently in about six weeks. Early action by congress in making adequate appropriations for starting the work for the improvements of the harbors named is imperative. I am firmly convinced that if the proper showing is made to congress at this time, this great movement for summer, to the very great material advantage of the entire Pacific Northwest.

Respectfully submitted this twenty-first day of January, 1925.

SALARY INCREASES

I have been called upon to approve or disapprove a number of bills increasing the salaries of state officials. I have taken the position that the judiciary is a separate department of our government, and have looked with favor upon reasonable increases of salaries for judicial positions. We should hold in high respect and esteem judges of the circuit court and supreme court, those who study and determine judicial questions from their first inception to the court of last appeal. Judges should be chosen impartially, from among the ablest trained lawyers, without regard to political affiliations. Salaries paid to the judges of circuit and supreme courts should be sufficient to place them above pecuniary want, and above the desire to engage in business or even invest their savings in business ventures. For these reasons I have favored the increases of the salaries of judges. I also favor an increase in the salaries of the district attorneys of the various counties, as I believe that we will have better law enforcement if the legal representative of the state are better paid.

I realize the fact that a good state official at the head of a department deserves a good salary. I believe it is a general principle, however, that salaries for state officials should be increased, not for the benefit of the one who is in office, but for the future incumbent. When a man has made an active campaign to be elected to a certain office, and is elected, he should be satisfied for the full term with the salary provided by law at the time he became a candidate.

VETO OF ARMORY BILLS

Due to the failure of the legislature to provide sufficient revenue, I shall be obliged to veto all armory bills passed at the late session. I can not approve appropriation which exceed available revenue.

March 2, 1925.

I have today approved Senate Bill 26, fixing the salary of the supreme court judges at $7,500 per annum. I have signed this bill very reluctantly, because I believe at this time the amount should have been fixed at $6,000 per annum. In my message to the Thirty-third Legislative Assembly, I suggested that an increase in salary was due the supreme court judges from the present salary of $5,250 per annum. I consider this decidedly too low a salary to pay men eminent enough in the law to be supreme court judges. The alternative is presented tonight of approving this bill or vetoing it. Between the two I have decided to approve the bill. The supreme court is the great mainstay of our civilization. American institutions are maintained through the stability of our courts. Men who sit upon the bench should be freed from business cares and given sufficient salary so that they may give all of their time and ability to the legal work before them. Choosing between the two courses of action open to me I prefer to give them a little more than I think they should have a t this time rather than to compel them to work for two years more at a lower salary then I think that should have.

February 26, 1925.

To the Honorable Speaker of the House:

House bill 413 has passed the house and senate, which fixes a rate upon automobile busses of three-quarters of a mill per passenger mile per seat, and one mill per ton mile on carrying capacity of trucks.

Representation has been made persistently to me that these rates are confiscatory. I am extremely anxious to secure all revenue possible for the highway fund. The bill repealing the one-quarter mill road tax, which I have already signed, takes form the road fund $260,000 annually. This easily can be replaced in the highway fund from this tax on automobile busses and trucks, provided the rates are not so high that it will drive the busses and trucks out of business.

I have always vigorously opposed a certificate of “convenience and necessity.” The public roads are for the use of the public, and the granting of an exclusive right or privilege on the public highways always has been and now is contrary to my views of right public policy. I see nothing to change my general viewpoint. However, in view of the fact that the rates fixed on busses and trucks appear so high as provided in house bill 413, and the justice of these rates can not be definitely determined at present, may I ask you to give very careful consideration to the granting of a certificate of “convenience and necessity,” unassignable, limited to two years, and subject to the rules and regulations of the Public Service Commission, in order that those who pay these high taxes may not have unfair competition started against them before the legislature assembles again in 1927.

March 4, 1925.

To the Honorable Speaker of the House:

I am filing without my signature house bill 413 with the secretary of state on the fifth day after its receipt at the executive office, as required by law. This is the first time I have returned a bill without my approval or disapproval.

The Attorney-General of the State of Oregon, I. H. Van Winkle, has rendered an opinion, which I attach, wherein he states that the proposed act is clearly unconstitutional. Other eminent attorneys have also stated that in their opinion the bill would be found unconstitutional. Whether or not a measure is unconstitutional should be determined in the court of last resort. Should I veto the bill, its friends will have no chance to test its constitutionality. That opportunity should be given to those who are favorable to this legislation.

The traffic on our roads, unless controlled and regulated, will bring about the breaking up and destruction of our great highway system. It is claimed that a large percentage of all the damage to our highways results form the impact of the large commercial carriers of the state. If this is true, these carriers should pay a just and reasonable fee for the use of the roads, which, however, should not be confiscatory.

February 19, 1925.

To the Honorable President of the Senate:

I am returning herewith senate bill 34 with my disapproval for the following reasons:

(1) There is no necessity for this bill. The Highway Department has the right under existing law to employ as many traffic officers as it may deem necessary. The Highway Department also has the right to provide the necessary equipment and take care of the expenses.

(2) Senate bill 34, by implication at least, removes the highway department entirely from having any part in the control traffic on our highways. In my message two years ago, and in my message to this Thirty-third Legislative Assembly, I asked that this work all be put under the highway department, where it certainly belongs.

(3) Senate bill 34 makes the Secretary of State the chief enforcing traffic officer of the state. Traffic regulation is essentially a law-enforcing activity. It is purely a police function. The Constitution of the State of Oregon specifically defines the duties of the Secretary of State, which is that of a recording and auditing officer, and manifestly does not contemplate the vesting of executive power in his hands. The policing of our highways is a branch of the executive department.

Section 10, of article V, of the Constitution of the State of Oregon, provides that the governor shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed. This clearly calls in question the constitutionality of this proposed act.

(4) The entire motor department should be put under a separate bureau of the Highway Department, and controlled by the Highway Commissioners. At the present time the Secretary of State collects the license fees and gasoline tax, taking out all expenses, and turning over the balance to the highway fund, without audit or budget. Under senate bill 34 the Secretary of State is authorized to purchase the entire equipment, employ all clerical help necessary for the traffic department. The bill is extremely broad in granting the right to purchase equipment and pay expenses. No other department of state government has such authority. All of the other departments purchase their equipment through the Board of Control, where proper accounting is made. If senate bill 34 should become a law, there is nothing to prevent the purchase of new cars every few months, at any price the Secretary of State may see fit to pay; no bidding, no competition, no auditing outside of his own department—vesting in a purely auditing office executive functions with unlimited power to pay expenses and purchase equipment. No officer should be granted such power or authority. I can not be a party to the enactment of such law. I am therefore returning senate bill 34 with my veto.

March 2, 1925.

To the Honorable President of the Senate:

I am returning herewith, with my veto, senate bill 55, which attempts to amend section 9836, Oregon Laws.

The principal amendment made is that it requires the approval of four-fifths of the members of the Child Welfare Commission before any act of that commission can pass.

I think it unfair to require four to name an official or determine the policy of that commission.

Senate bill 55 is therefore returned with my disapproval.

March 2, 1925.

To the Honorable President of the Senate:

I herewith return senate bill 65 with my veto for the following reasons: This is a bill which attempts to provide the city of Bend with a right to take water from Tumalo creek, giving in lieu thereof water to be acquired from the Deschutes river which is to be exchanged and delivered through the main canal of the Deschutes county municipal improvement district’s project.

All of the water from Tumalo creek has been appropriated for use on the Tumalo project or on lads within the Deschutes county municipal improvement district. The state has expended $400,000 on the project and the district has expended an additional $650,000.

The Desert Land Board and the irrigation districts now have control of the project and this bill does not authorize the board to approve the exchange. I am in full sympathy with the attempts of the city of Bend to acquire a pure water supply and will be glad to approve a bill granting the Desert Land Board the right in so far as the state’s interests are concerned to approve this transfer. The existing rights of the Tumalo irrigation district can not be legislated, but the city should have the right to secure its supply upon paying proper compensation for the service. February 6,1925

To the Honorable President of the Senate:

Senate bill 86 is herewith returned with my veto. The following are my reasons for this action:

Twenty-two years ago I first became a member of the Oregon senate. Well do I remember two very disturbing elements at that session which prevented proper consideration of legislative measures. The first was the election of a United States senator by the legislature, and the other was the election of commissioners for the Port of Portland by the legislature. For more than one-third of a century—long before most of the members of this body had entered public life—in nearly every session of the Oregon legislature—the most pernicious and vicious of the disturbing elements which have worked against beneficial legislation has been the influence of the Port of Portland. Influence and votes have been promised and delivered to country members of the legislature in return for their support in the selection of certain of certain commissioners for the Port of Portland. Rural members of the Oregon legislature, to my certain knowledge, are often reluctant to offend the Portland members for fear that reprisals will be taken upon legislation in which they are deeply interested.

Neither Coos Bay nor Astoria, both having ports and port commissioners, nor any other port in Oregon except Portland, have brought their troubles to the Oregon legislature. Within their own districts all of the other ports have elected their own commissioners.

Honest citizens have often wondered why the Oregon legislature is called upon to decide who shall be the commissioners for the Port of Portland.

The Port of Portland is not a branch of state government; it is a local affair, a subdivision, comparable to an irrigation district, a school district or a city within the state continually asking the legislature for more than thirty years to name its commissioners or directors? Especially when such demand was accompanied by a threat that until complied with other needed legislation would not be passed?

The present law provides that the commissioners shall be residents within the district of the Port of Portland. There are nine commissioners. Three of them should be elected by the legal voters of the district every two years. If, however, the citizens of Portland, for any reason, should deem it unwise to elect their own commissioners, but wish them to be appointed by the state government, it is then clearly an executive and not a legislative function. I can find no sound reason or justification for the passage of such an act as this, which legislates into office men, some of whom have not attended meetings of the Port for many months.

We have three departments of government, and the Oregon Constitution, patterned after the Constitution of the United States, makes these three branches of government—the legislative, the executive and the judicial—separate and distinct, each with its own proper functions to perform. A century and a quarter of national life under such a constitution has proved the wisdom of its authors. To alter it thoughtlessly, or maliciously to tamper with the fundamental principles of government involved in such radical action as this, is to invite chaos in government.

May I remind the members of this august body that a great political party claims it won a signal victory in the last national election by a vigorous campaign against a candidate who sought to make the legislative branch of our national government superior to the judiciary. The same identical principle is involved in the proposed legislation of senate bill 86. It is clearly an usurpation of executive functions by the legislative branch of our state government. As governor, I refuse to be a party to such illegal seizure of executive power.

In 1921 the legislature enacted a law transferring to the governor the appointment of commissioners for the Port of Portland. This law was referred to the voters of the Port district at a special election held on June 7, 1921, and by an overwhelming majority the people of the Port district sustained that law. Senate bill 86 clearly overrides and sets at naught the will of the people as expressed at that election.

I have been criticized for the reason that I appointed five commissioners for the Port of Portland on January 27, 1925, instead of waiting until the terms of the present commissioners had almost expired. Please remember that I did not remove the present commissioners, although such power is vested in me by the Moser act of 1915. I did name five commissioners to take office June 1, 1925, two democrats and three republicans—men of outstanding integrity and ability—and of peculiar fitness for this work.

I appointed four members of this commission in May, 1924, two republicans and two democrats—men eminently qualified for the position. I have done my best to free the Port of Portland of partisan politics. It was my earnest hope and desire that these early appointments would convince all of my sincerity and prevent the bitter partisanship and intrigue which have heretofore existed.

For months the public press of the state has carried bold headlines asserting that the legislature would strip the executive of all the appointive and administrative powers possible. Immediately upon the assembling of the legislature a systematic and careful canvass was made of its members. Pledges were enacted and made to carry out this program. I have been informed that the original program was to introduce one bill, stripping the executive of all appointive power, and almost enough votes were pledged to enact such a law over the veto of the governor. Realizing fully the dissension and strife that would ensue, and the jeopardy resulting to legislation necessary to the welfare of the people of Oregon, I early announced the appointments of the commissioners. My greatest offense seems to have been in my refusal to recognize one certain faction. For many years this faction has been the dominating figure over every meeting of the legislature. By insidious lobbying, by one method or another, it has controlled various members of each house, coercing legislation and preventing the passage of beneficial laws until this faction had secured its desired legislation. For the promotion of the commercial fish interests of this state, this element has been largely instrumental in securing appropriations from the state treasury, within the last few years, of almost $1,000,000. For years this same faction has been the dominating influence in matters pertaining to the Port of Portland. This faction, seemingly, does not desire to allow the taxpayers of the Port of Portland to elect their own managers. Has old Oregon reached that point in her career where she must submit to the political and commercial domination of one faction? Will her people longer countenance such vicious influence and supervision?

With pleasure I would sign a bill giving the people of the Portland district the right and privilege of electing their own commissioners. The people of Oregon outside of this district, and their members of the legislature, should not be called upon to name the governors of this local commission, as is attempted in this bill.

I hope that this agitation may bring a movement that will vest in the citizens of the Port of Portland district the right to elect their own commissioners. This commission is now spending more than one million dollars annually, and the many taxpayer in that district should have the power to govern their own affairs and this legislature should be freed from the pernicious effect of this attempt to pervert the proper functioning of the affairs of our state government.

I therefore return senate bill 86 with my veto.

February 25, 1925.

To the Honorable President of the Senate:

I am returning herewith senate bill 198 with my veto. This bill abolishes the office of constable in cities containing more than 100,000 inhabitants. If this bill should become law, it would not take effect until January 1, 1929, four years hence.

There is my opinion that better service will be secured if the district courts are allowed to retain their own officers to serve processes. This office should not be combined with the sheriff’s office.

The bill is therefore returned with my disapproval.

February 25, 1925.

To the Honorable President of the Senate:

I am returning herewith senate bill 199 with my disapproval.

This bill attempts to do two things: (1) It provides for the eighth circuit judge in the fourth judicial district. (2) It attempts to appoint William A. Ekwall to fill the place created by the proposed act.

Two years ago I vetoed a bill creating an additional judge in this district. My veto has not yet been acted upon by this Thirty-third Legislative Assembly.

I disapprove the bill for the reason that I do not believe there is any necessity for another judge in the fourth judicial district. I am informed that two years ago there were many more cases awaiting trial in that district than at present, and that the docket is cleaned up in better shape than it has been for years. The law that was enacted two years ago, which gave the chief justice power to send in circuit judges from outside districts to assist in relieving the congestion in the fourth judicial district, has worked admirably. Many practicing attorneys of the Multnomah bar have stated to me that there is no necessity for an additional judge at this time.

I further disapprove the bill because it names the judge in the bill, which is clearly unconstitutional. It is an attempt on the part of the legislature to assume executive power. I believe the entire act is invalidated by the attempt of the legislature to name the judge in the bill. Section 1a of article VII of the Constitution of the State of Oregon provides as follows:

“ The judicial power of the state shall be vested in one supreme court and in such other courts as may from time to time be created. The judges of the supreme and other courts shall be elected by the legal voters of the state or of their respective districts for a term of six years, and shall receive such compensation as may be provided by law, which compensation shall not be diminished during the term for which they are elected.”

Section 16 of article V of the Constitution reads as follows:

“ When, during a recess of the legislature a vacancy shall happen in any office, the appointment of which is vested in the legislature, or when at any time a vacancy shall have occurred in any state office, or in the office of judge of any court, the governor shall fill such vacancy by appointment, which shall expire when a successor shall have been elected and qualified.”

In the case of Cline & Howsome v. Greenwood & Smith (10 Oregon Reports, 237), Justice Lord held that:

* * * “Under our constitution, the governor is invested with the power to fill vacancies as well to places which have never been occupied as to a place which has been previously occupied. An office is just as vacant which has never been filled as an office vacant by death or resignation. In either case, the office is empty, unoccupied, without an incumbent.”

I am therefore returning senate bill 199 with my veto.

March 4, 1925.

To the Honorable President of the Senate:

I am returning senate bill 207 with my disapproval. This bill appropriates $2,000 annually out of the general fund of the state of Oregon to assist in experimental and demonstration work within counties east of the Cascade mountains and for cop rotation experimental work within Umatilla county.

This adds one more to the many continuing appropriations upon the statute books, which as a policy of state government, is very objectionable. We now have eight experimental stations in the state of Oregon, three of which are located in the wheat districts where crop rotation should be practiced. It is my judgment that this work should be carried on by one or more of the stations that are already located and amply provided with funds in eastern Oregon.

I am therefore returning senate bill 207 with my veto.

March 3, 1925.

To the Honorable President of the Senate:

I am returning herewith senate bill 257 with my disapproval.

This bill is for the construction of an armory at Cottage Grove, and makes an appropriation of $30,000 from the general fund of the state treasury.

The appropriations made by the thirty-third legislative assembly exceed by more than $500,000 the available revenue, making it necessary for me to veto many appropriation bills. This seems to me to be a place where we can at this time curtail state expenditures. The need of an armory I recognize, but I do not regard it of sufficient importance for the creation of a state debt with no immediate prospect of payment.

Senate bill 257 is therefore returned with my veto.

March 3, 1925.

To the Honorable Speaker of the House:

I am returning herewith house bill 31 with my disapproval.

This bill is for the construction of an armory at Forest Grove, and makes an appropriation of $30,000 from the general fund of the state treasury. The appropriations made by the Thirty-third Legislative Assembly exceed by more than $500,000 the available revenue, making it necessary for me to veto many appropriation bills. This seems to me to be a place where we can at this time curtail state expenditures. The need of an armory I recognize, but I do not regard it of sufficient importance for creation of a state debt with no immediate prospect of payment.

House bill 31 is therefore returned with my veto.

March 3, 1925.

To the Honorable Speaker of the House:

I am returning herewith house bill 74 with me disapproval. This bill is for the construction of an armory at La Grande, and makes an appropriation of $40,000 from the general fund of the state treasury. The appropriations made by the Thirty-third Legislative Assembly exceed by more than $500,000 the available revenues, making it necessary for me to veto many appropriation bill. This seems to me to be a place where we can at the time curtail state expenditures. The need of an armory I recognize, but I do not regard it of sufficient importance for the creation of a state debt with no immediate prospect of payment.

House bill 74 is therefore returned with my veto.

February 9, 1925.

To the Honorable Speaker of the House:

House bill 91 is herewith returned with my disapproval.

This amendment to section 5340, Oregon Laws, proposes to remedy a situation arising over the renewal of textbook contracts which will expire in June, 1925. The present law provides that the State Textbook Commission shall adopt one-third of the textbooks at each biennial meeting. As former adoptions were made every six years, it follows that when the contracts expire next June, there will be two-thirds of the textbooks unadopted. The law provided for this in stating (section 5340, O. L.): “All contracts with publishers for books not changed shall remain in force until the readoption, replacement or substitution of said textbooks.” This means that a textbook company which has already enjoyed a lucrative contract for six years will have its contract extended for two years. The state of Oregon stands ready to comply with this provision of the law, but I am informed by the State Superintendent of Public Instruction that “the publishers refuse to recontract at the prices for which their books were contracted for in 1919.” Your house bill 91 proposes to remedy this situation by conferring power upon the Board of Education to enter into a renewal contract with the publishers at the “best possible price.” Since there is to be no competition, this means that tit will be a one-sided bargain, the state being forced to accept the terms of the publishers.

Since the publishers, whose contracts expire in June, 1925, refuse to renew at the same prices, although under the present law such contracts would remain in force under their present terms did the publishers not object, it follows that the state is not bound as the other party to the contract, but is free under such an emergency to consider competitive offerings from other concerns.

Such a contingency appears to be already provided for by section 5346, Oregon Laws, which empowers the chairman of the Textbook Commission, of the governor, to call the Textbook Commission into special session when “for any cause” it becomes necessary to adopt any textbook instead of or in addition to those required, etc.

The state contracts for all of its other supplies under open, competitive bids. It would not consider for a moment the renewal of a flour contract of a meat contract for its institutions at increased prices without competition. Why should it be called upon to renew book contracts at advanced prices and with no remedy other than this proposal to empower the Board of Education—two members being a majority—to make such a contract? Why surrender to the book trust?

Since the publishers themselves refuse to renew at the prices enjoyed by them for the past six years, it seems to me that the state should not deliberately deprive itself of the right to force the book publishers into open competition for contracts. TO eliminate the right of the state to act through its Textbook Commission in such a renewal is, in my judgment, a mistaken remedy. It could have but one result—an increase in the cost of textbooks. Textbook legislation should be in the interest of the patrons of our schools, rather than to afford a means of further exploitation of an already overburdened public.

House bill 91 is therefore returned with my veto.

February 9, 1925.

To the Honorable Speaker of the House:

I am returning house bill 111 with my disapproval for the reason that this bill requires inspection of all bovine livestock in Linn county, which includes range beef animals.

I consider this entirely too sweeping and drastic in its provisions. It is my belief that this bill should apply to all dairy bovine livestock as well as all pure breds. There are in Linn county several thousand head of range animals that run on the open range in the Cascade mountains, that are not affected by tuberculosis as are the highly fed purebred animals and the dairy stock.

If tuberculosis is driven out of the purebred cattle and out of the dairy herds of Linn county, there will be practically no tuberculosis left in the county. It is estimated by those who inspect slaughtered animals that not to exceed one in one thousand head of range animals is affected by tuberculosis, being such a low percentage that it is practically negligible.

For the above reasons I veto house bill 111.

February 21, 1925.

To the Honorable Speaker of the House:

I am returning herewith house bill 152 with my disapproval. Since I have been governor there have come to my office many bills clearly designed to serve special interests and against the interests of the public, but there has been presented no bill as far-reaching in its possible effect, and as detrimental to the general welfare, as house bill 152.

I have been informed that the object of this bill is to secure water during the dry seasons for the locomotives of the Southern Pacific company. After carefully reading the bill I have concluded that it is far-reaching, and, while it may be intended only for the innocent purpose of acquiring water for the locomotives, should it become law it will unsettle the entire water code of the state of Oregon. No vested water right would be safe should this bill become law, because it expressly provides that a railway company shall have the right to condemn and take any water right owned by any person and sever it from the land to which it now belongs by reason of existing law.

Under this bill the railway corporations operating may appropriate water that belongs to any private appropriator and acquire it for their use under the general condemnation laws of the state. After its acquisition the state engineer will be compelled to issue a certificate to the railway corporation, which certificate shall be evidence in courts of rights so acquired.

The bill further provides that all certificates of water rights heretofore issued by the board and now cancelled by reason of failure to pay fees of other cause are revived and restored to the original appropriator. Should this bill become law, the Southern Pacific Company can acquire the water rights on the McKenzie River, the celebrated Crater Lake project, with its more than 300,000 electric horsepower, and pure mountain water which should be used in all the towns from Eugene to Portland, and owned by all the people.

Chapter 4, title 33, Oregon Laws, as amended by chapter 238 of the General Laws of 1923, provides the proceeding for appropriating water. This bill goes further than anything that has been attempted in water legislation in this state, and gives and grants to the railways, for railway operating purposes, the right to acquire by purchase, gift or devise, or by condemnation, any of the water rights owned by any person, and also acquire the rights of all other persons affected by change of place or character of use of such water rights.

The term “railway operating purposes” is so broad that it may mean sufficient to enable a private company to acquire water already owned by the public, an authority which should not be granted.

This bill jeopardizes the interests of all the owners of water rights and water privileges in the state of Oregon. In large measure this bill nullifies the present water code, divesting the people of a natural right which should be vested in them for the public interest. It is class legislation carried to the extreme limit.

Railways can now secure all the water they need for their engines by purchase and they can appropriate water the same as any individual or corporation, and should not be vested with any special rights or privileges.

This bill impairs the obligation of a contract and, and appears to be unconstitutional, as it violates section 5717, Oregon Laws, as amended by chapter 283 of the General Laws of 1923, which provides that the vested water rights of any person shall not be impaired. The severance of the water right from the land is an important feature of this bill. Section 5717 of Oregon Laws, as amended by chapter 283 of the General Laws of 1923, protects the riparian rights of land owners subject to the proper use of the water.

By implication, at least, this bill attempts to repeal section 5717, Oregon Laws, as amended by chapter 283 of the General Laws of 1923, which assumes that the water rights of the state belong to the people.

No emergency exists that calls for such sweeping legislation as this. I am aware of the fact that we must do nothing to retard the electrification of any railway system in the state of Oregon, or the development of any water power, but it should be done in a regular, legitimate way with the rights of the public and of the present water appropriators fully protected.

I am therefore returning house bill 152 with my veto.

March 3, 1925.

To the Honorable Speaker of the House:

I am returning herewith house bill 199 with my disapproval.

This bill appropriated $15,000 from the general fund for the use of the Land Settlement Commission to buy stock, equipment and pay outstanding obligations.

It is necessary at this time to veto appropriations amounting to approximately $500,000, and I believe this is one place where we can retrench without serious loss.

I recommended that the commission sell one of the three farms they have now, and use the money to improve the remaining two.

I am therefore returning house bill 199 with my veto.

March 1, 1925.

To the Honorable Speaker of the House:

I am returning house bill 232 with my disapproval. This bill amends section 5278, Oregon Laws, as amended by section 10, chapter 283, General Laws of Oregon for 1923. The present law gives to appropriators of water and investors in hydro-electric power plants all the right, power and privileges that it seems to me should be granted, except a few minor changes to make the present law conform exactly to the federal statutes. This proposed measure, house bill 232, goes farther and, by certain provisions and limitations, will, I fear, create a condition detrimental to the interests of the people.

I am therefore returning house bill 232 with my veto.

March 3, 1925.

To the Honorable Speaker of the House:

I am returning herewith house bill 239 with my disapproval.

This bill increases the salary of the Food and Dairy Commissioner from $3,000 to $3,600 per annum. I do not consider that this is the time for increases in salaries when the producers of the state are finding it so difficult to meet their present obligations and expenses. I believe that the next legislature should revise the salaries of all state officials, and that the revisions should be made applicable to future incumbents.

House bill 239 is therefore returned with my veto.

February 27, 1925.

To the Honorable Speaker of the House:

I am returning herewith house bill 256 with my disapproval, for the following reasons:

We today have a law which compels the male applicant for marriage license to secure a certificate from a practicing physician that he is free contagious or infectious venereal disease. House bill 256 is a step backward. The applicants for the marriage license, being interested parties, are not the proper ones to make the affidavits. It opens the way to easy perjury. The law should be made more drastic and severe instead of being rendered valueless as would be the case if house bill 256 become a law.

The present law is fairly effective. A similar, but more stringent law, has been held constitutional by the supreme court of Wisconsin. In discussing the law the supreme court of Wisconsin in a recent case said:

“ This law is a reasonable limitation of the right to marry, and furthermore it is not an unreasonale classification in applying it only to men and not to women.”

The law does not interfere with religious liberty. No church desires its minister to perform the marriage tie by uniting a man afflicted with a loathsome disease to an innocent women.

I would gladly sign a bill making the present Oregon law more effective, but I refure to be a party to breaking down and making the present law inoperative, for it has accomplished much good.

I am therefore returning house bill 256 with my veto.

March 3, 1925.

To the Honorable Speaker of the House:

I am returning herewith house bill 259 with my disapproval.

This bill provides for an increase in salary of the Secretary of State and State Treasurer from $4,500 to $5,400 per annum, and increases the salary of the Attorney-General from $4,000 to $5,000 per annum.

In view of the condition of the state treasury, salaries should not be increased at this time.

I am firmly of the opinion that changes in salaries, whether increased or decreased, should affect only future incumbents of the office. I believe that the next legislature should revise the salaries paid to state officials, and that the revisions should be made applicable to future incumbents.

House bill 259 is therefore returned with my veto.

March 3, 1925.

To the Honorable Speaker of the House:

I am returning herewith house bill 274 with my disapproval.

This bill calls for an appropriation of $6,925 which is not absolutely necessary. This supplementary code would indeed by handy and useful, but at this time when it is necessary to veto so many appropriation bills in order to keep the expenditures within the available revenues, I am convinced that this is one saving that can be made without great inconvenience to any one.

I am therefore returning house bill 274 with my veto.

February 28, 1925.

To the Honorable Speaker of the House:

I am herewith returning house bill 384 with my disapproval.

This bill is intended to prevent the publication, circulation and distribution of election tickets on or prior to election day.

I fail to see the necessity for such a law. The friends of good government, lacking the cohesive their information to their friends except through a ticket published and distributed prior to or on election day. I fail to see any wrong or crime that might be committed by the innocent circulation of tickets endorsing certain candidates by certain groups of people.

I am therefore returning house bill 384 with my veto.

March 4, 1925.

To the Honorable Speaker of the House:

I am returning herewith house bill 416 with my disapproval.

This bill provides a method of taxation on deforested lands and timber not yet of merchantable size. The act undertakes to separate from the rest of the taxable property in the state all lands not now in timber of merchantable size and chiefly valuable for the purpose of growing such timber, and undertakes to deal with such lands for purposes of taxation in a manner that is different form that provided by law with respect to other assessable property.

Under this proposed act the State Board of Forestry would have the power of valuing the lands for assessment purposes. The State Board of Forestry consists of the Governor, the acting head of the forest school of the Oregon Agricultural College, and five electors of the state of Oregon, to be appointed by the Governor from and upon the authoritative recommendation of the Oregon State Grange the Oregon Forest Fire Association, the West Coast Lumbermen’s Association, the United States Forest Service, and the Oregon Wool Growers’ Association, each to select and name on of such member, five of whom are appointed by five different private organizations.

Assessing property for the purpose of taxation is one of the most important functions of government. It is intolerable that such powers should be exercised by a board the majority of the members of which are appointed neither by the electorate nor by any governmental agency whatever, but solely by private organizations standing in no responsible relation to the state, and controlled, it may be, by persons who are not even citizens of the state. The appointment of the members of the State Board of Forestry in this fashion is repugnant to the whole spirit of representative government. Its constitutionality should be tested at an early date by the Supreme Court. This bill is built up around this State Board of Forestry, vesting in the board greater power than should be exercised by any commission so constituted.

Another object of the bill seems to be permit owners of land to enter into contracts with the state extending over a period of 60 years. Under the terms of the proposed legislation for two full generations the state would be bound by contract not to change the assessment upon lands so classified.

The payment of one-half of the taxes based on the assessment by the Board of Forestry would be deferred to the end of the term. During the term no other taxes than the property tax so provided may be assessed on any such lands or any timber thereon or on “any profits thereon or upon the business represented by their harvesting.” This last provision may by designed to prevent the imposition of any severance tax upon the removal of timber from such lands or any tax upon the income derived from the business of marketing such timber.

Under the present form of our constitution legislation respecting the power of taxation (article IX, section 1) whereby assessment and taxation are required to be “uniform” but are not required to be “equal” there is eminent judicial authority for the view that the legislature may authorize such a contract between the state and the landowner, and that once such a contract is made it is binding upon the state. It may well be believed that once this bill becomes a law all owners of lands within its purvey will hasten to contract with the state in accordance with its provisions. If such a contract be binding upon the state, an there is in my judgment grave reason to apprehend that it would be, the state would be bound to the owners of these lands for two generations not to change in any respect whatever its policy of taxation adopted in this bill.

On the assessment rolls of Oregon there are approximately 27,000,000 acres of land, of which 12,000,000 acres would be brought under this act if it becomes a law, and would be automatically removed from the taxing power of the state and county. In Clatsop county alone there are only approximately 7,000 acres of land not subject to the effects of this bill. In that county 500,000 acres of timber and deforested lands would be removed from the control of the county by a contract between the landowner and the State Forester.

In my long experience in legislative work in the state of Oregon I never have examined a bill that might be as far reaching and as serious in its consequences as this one. Oregon must perpetuate the lumber manufacturing industry. The state should become the major agency in reforestation. Our reforestation policy should include the acquisition by the state not only of all the cut-over, burnt-over and otherwise deforested lands, but particularly should include the acquisition of all lands which at present have a forest growth of insufficient size to be of commercial value for lumber manufacturing purposes. This, I am authoritatively informed, would include a total of 3,000,000 acres of land which have by nature become reforested and will, if protected form fire, be ready for the lumberman’s axe by the time the mature and old-growth timber in the state is exhausted. If a sound policy of reforestation were undertaken by the state of Oregon immediately, we could increase the annual output of manufactured lumber many times its present rate, and maintain such increased rate indefinitely.

I have always believed in a severance tax on timber. The matured tree should yield the money necessary to grow a new crop. Records show that the state of Oregon uses only about 5 percent of the amount of timber cut within the state, 20 percent being exported, and 75 percent being shipped to other states in the Union. A severance tax of $1 per thousand feet would yield $5,000,000 annually. With only a part of this annual revenue, a reforestation program could be started in Oregon that would astonish the world in its importance and in its far-reaching results.

After reading and carefully studying this bill I find that I am in no way in sympathy with its provision, and I deeply regret that the legislature sis not pass a bill at this session without the objectionable features that I have pointed out, as I am certain that there is nothing of more importance to the state of Oregon than an unselfish policy of reforestation.

House bill 416 is therefore returned with my veto.

February 28, 1925.

To the Honorable Speaker of the House:

I am returning herewith house bill 418 with my disapproval.

This bill provides for the creation of an additional inspector for mattresses and pillows in the state of Oregon with all expenses attendant thereon. There seems to be no adequate reason for incurring this expense at the present time, as under the present law proper inspection is being made.

House bill 418 is therefore returned with my veto.

February 21, 1925.

To the Honorable Speaker of the House:

I am herewith returning house bill 419 with my disapproval, for the following reasons:

This bill, introduced by the joint ways and means committee, appropriated $100,000 for the general and contingent expenses of the Public Service Commission of Oregon. I stated to the ways and means committee that if an act was passed levying fees that would raise approximately $80,000 biennially from utilities corporations, and make the same payable in to the general fund of the state treasury, I would then sign this bill, waiving my objection to the Public Service Commission as now constituted. It is my belief that his commission should be appointed by the governor and removable at his pleasure.

No bill has bee presented to my office making provision for the collection of such fees from the utilities corporations, and, as today is the fifth day since this bill was received at the executive office, I am obliged to veto the bill or approve it, and, as today is the fifth day since this bill was received at the executive office, I am obliged to veto the bill or approve it, and, as I have previously stated, it is impossible for me to approve the bill in its present form. In all courts at law, fees are collected for filings from litigants, which in some small way, at least, takes up the expenses of the litigation.

The wheat raiser, the potato raiser, and the onion raiser pay for the inspection of their crops. In fact, throughout all our departments of state government fees are exacted from those who ask for the protection of the laws of our state. There is no reason why the utilities corporations of the state of Oregon should be exempt from paying for the cost of the Public Service Commission.

I am therefore returning house bill 419 with my veto.

March 2, 1925.

To the Honorable Speaker of the House:

I am returning herewith house bill 429 with my veto. The bill is too broad in its terms. The Attorney-General considers the bill invalid for the reason that he title sets forth several purposes: To cure defects in titles; to validate and confirm deeds; to provide for recording deeds with in one bill. This bill takes up these various purposes and attempts to deal with all in one act. A statute should not be referred to by title, nor should a section or an act, but should be quoted in full. The word “heretofore” is objectionable because a law is supposed to govern future action unless otherwise specified. Most of the provisions of this act seem to refer to future action. In one place the words are used “which sales shall have been confirmed,” and in section 5 the words are used “all deeds heretofore executed in this state.” The bill, should it become a law, would tend to unsettle titles and might lead to much litigation.

House bill 429 is therefore returned with my veto.

March 2, 1925.

To the Honorable Speaker of the House:

I am herewith returning house bill 430 with my disapproval.

This bill is too broad in its terms. The Attorney-General has held that the bill is incorrectly drawn, and he considers it invalid for the reason that the title sets forth several purposes: To cure defects in deeds or other instruments; to cure defects in judicial sales of real property; to cure defects in sales of real property by executors, administrators and guardians. All of these subjects should not be dealt with in one bill. This bill takes up these various purposes and attempts to deal with all of them in one act. A statute or an act, but should be quoted in full.

I am therefore returning house bill 430 with my disapproval.

March 3, 1925.

To the Honorable Speaker of the House:

I am returning herewith house bill 445 with my disapproval.

This bill increases the salary of the State Engineer from $3,600 to $4,600 per annum. The salary is undoubtedly too low for anyone capable of being state engineer. Nevertheless, it is my belief that salaries should not be increased at this time, and if one increase is made I feel that all should be increased.

I am firmly of the opinion that changes in salaries, whether increased or decreased, should affect only future incumbents of office. I believe that the next legislature should revise the salaries paid to state officials, and that the revisions should be made applicable to future incumbents.

House bill 445 is therefore returned with my veto.

March 3, 1925.

To the Honorable Speaker of the House:

I hereby veto item in house bill 466 for $20,000 on page 1 of the act for the payment of capital and outlay of and in connection with the University of Oregon Medical School, and approve the act for $160,000 for salaries and wages of and in connection with the University of Oregon Medical School, and I also approve the item of $34,161 for the payment of the general expenses, operating expenses and maintenance expenses of and in connection with the University of Oregon Medical School.

March 3, 1925.

To the Honorable Speaker of the House:

I am returning herewith house bill 467 with my disapproval.

This bill appropriates $22,040 for salaries and wages in connection with the Doernbecher Memorial Hospital in Portland, and $20,020 for operating expenses in connection with the Doernbecher Memorial Hospital.

This hospital is not yet constructed. I do not believe that money should be appropriated from the general fund for the maintenance and support of a hospital in Portland at the present time.

House bill 467 is therefore returned with my veto.

March 3, 1925.

To the Honorable Speaker of the House:

I am returning house bill 474 with my disapproval of item 3 in the following words:

For the payment of operating expenses, maintenance expenses and capital outlays of and in connection with the office of Oregon State Diary and Food Commissioner…………………………………….$4,598.00

I hereby approve house bill 474 in item 1:

For the payment of salaries and wages of and in connection with the Oregon State Dairy and Food Commissioner…………………………………………………………………………………$34,400.00

And in item 2:

For the payment of the general expenses of and in connection with the Oregon State Dairy and Food Commissioner………………………………………………………………………………....$17,185.00

March 3, 1925.

To the Honorable Speaker of the House:

I am returning herewith house bill 478 with my approval except as to item of $5,000 on page 2, for the use of the State Board of Horticulture of the State of Oregon during the years 1925 and 1926 in inspecting for the presence of, quarantining against, and combating the alfalfa weevil throughout the state of Oregon, which item I disapprove.

House bill 478 is therefore returned with my approval except as to the item specifically mentioned.

March 3, 1925.

To the Honorable Speaker of the House:

I am returning herewith house bill 483.

This is an appropriation bill for the State Normal School at Monmouth.

I approve item 1 for the payment of salaries, general expenses and operating expenses at the Oregon Normal School, Polk county, Oregon $40,000.

I disapprove and veto item 2, for constructing, furnishing and equipping one new classroom building at the Oregon Normal School, Polk county, Oregon, $80,000.

I disapprove and veto item 3, for paving and a new sewer system at the Oregon Normal School, at Monmouth, Polk county, Oregon, $16,000.

House bill 483 is therefore returned with my approval of item 1, and with my disapproval of items 2 and 3.

March 3, 1925.

To the Honorable Speaker of the House:

I hereby approve $40,000 of the item of $50,000 appropriated in house bill 491, and disapprove $10,000 of the item as referred to in section 3 of chapter 296 of the General Laws of Oregon for 1923, wherein it is provided that $10,000 of the amount hereby appropriated shall be set aside for the payment of bounties in the counties which elect to pay bounties.

March 3, 1925.

To the Honorable Speaker of the House:

I am returning herewith house bill 494 with my approval of all items except item on page 2:

For the payment of the salaries and wages, the general expenses and the operating expenses of and in connection with the Oregon State Board of Eugenics………………………………………….$5,000.00

Which item I disapprove.

This meets the approval of the State Board of Health, which board agrees to take from other available funds the amount necessary to so the preliminary work contemplated under this item.

March 3, 1925.

To the Honorable Speaker of the House:

I am returning herewith house bill 506 with my approval except as to item on page 3, for the aid of the Oregon Social Hygiene Society in continuing, extending and prosecuting its educational work throughout the state in the cause of social hygiene, $30,000, which item I disapprove.

The work of this society properly belongs under the State Board of Health. This would affect a material saving in the appropriations from the general fund of our state treasury. Too many boards and too many heads mean increased expenses and burdens upon the general taxpayer.

House bill 506 is therefore returned with my approval except as to the item specifically mentioned.

March 4, 1925.

To the Honorable Speaker of the House:

A part of the penalty we are obliged to pay for the repeal of the Income Tax Law, which would have produced $2,500,000 each year, is enforced retrenchment at the state hospital and the institution for the feeble-minded. We do need a new industrial building and a new greenhouse at the state hospital. We also need at the institution for the feeble-minded a new auditorium and a new dining room. It is right and proper, too, that the cemetery at Roseburg for the soldiers’ home be beautified. However, these institutions can properly function without these improvements.

In returning house bill 508 it is with many regrets that I find it necessary to veto these items. I have approved all the items therein listed except the following:

On page 4, the item for the payment of the maintenance expenses and capital outlays and for the defraying of necessary expenses in maintaining and improving the cemetery in connection with the Oregon state soldiers’ home, $7,700, which item I disapprove and veto.

In the item on page 4 “for the payment of the maintenance expenses, capital outlay, for the installation of a new water system, and for the constructing, equipping and furnishing of a new industrial building at the Oregon state hospital,” made up of the following proposed appropriations:

Constructing industrial building $ 64,559

Furnishing new water system 21,000

Providing new laundry equipment 12,705

New laboratory supplies 5,500

Purchase of farm implements 3,395

Machinery for industrial building 4,040

New greenhouse 4,384

Purchase of horse 1,100

New smokestack 1,350

Maintenance, replacements, betterments, repairs 44,275

TOTAL 162,408

I disapprove and veto the appropriation of $40,000 for constructing, equipping and furnishing a new auditorium; I disapprove and veto the item of $25,000 for constructing, equipping and furnishing a new dining room; thereby reducing the total from $141,450 to $76,450.

For my authority to subdivide the items in this bill I am attaching hereto opinion of the Attorney-General.

House bill 508 is therefore approved for all items except those hereinbefore specifically mentioned as disapproved and vetoed.

March 3, 1925.

To the Honorable Speaker of the House:

I am returning herewith house bill 517 with my disapproval.

This bill provide for a special election to be held on the second Tuesday in September, 1925.

I do not believe there is any necessity for this election. It requires the expenditure of $15,000, which should not be appropriated at this time. The election would also cost the counties of the state an additional $100,000. I regard it entirely unnecessary.

I also thing that he sate fixed in this bill would preclude quite a large percentage of our citizens from exercising their right of franchise.

House bill 517 is therefore returned with my disapproval.

Oregon Secretary of State • 136 State Capitol • Salem, OR 97310-0722
Phone: (503) 986-1523 • Fax: (503) 986-1616 • oregon.sos@state.or.us

© 2013 State of Oregon All Rights Reserved​