The weekly Minnesotian. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1852-1858, 1853-10-01
No. le, Oh. ofR.) "A bill amendatory of the

And the question recurring on the adoption
OF the following amendment, proposed by the
Committee of the Whole, viz
Strike out the words BE it enacted by the
Legislative Assembly of the Territory Of Min
nes0ta.'
And the ayes and noes being called for and
ordered there were ayes 8, noes g.
Those who voted in the affirmative were
Messrs. Dutton. Ludden, Mckee, Russell,
Ramsey, Truax, Wilcox and Speakers.
Those who voted in the negative were
Messrs. Ames, Lott, Murray, Moot, Oliuer,
Randall, Stinson and Wells-s.
So the amendment proposed by the Commit
tee Of the Whole was not concurred in.
The question then recurring on ordering the
bill to be engrOssed for third reading,
Mr.. Murray moved that the bill be engrossed
and read third time On tomorrow,
And the yeas and nays being called for and
ordered, there were yeas 6, nays 10.
Those who voted in the affirmative were,
Messrs. Ames, Lott, Murray, Moot, Oliver,
and Wells-6.
Those who voted in the negative were.
Messrs. Dutton, Ludden, Mckee, Randall,
Russell, Ramsey, StimsOn, Truax, Wilcox and
Speaker--l0.
So the motion was negatived.
The question again recurring on ordering the
bill to be engrossed for third reading,
And the yeas and nays being called for and
ordered, there were yeas 8, nays T.
Those who voted in the affirmative were,
Messrs. Ames Lott, Murray, Moot, Oliver
Randall. Stinason. Truax and Wells--9.
Those voting in the negative were,
Messrs. Dutton, Ludden. Mckee, Russell,
Ramsey, Wilcox and Speaker-7
So tn bill was ordered to be engrossed."
We now go through to the last scene of the
drama which We find on page 1853:
"Bills ready for third reading being now
in order,
No. Is, III. Of R.) "A bill amendatory of the
School Law
Was taken up.
The question then recurring on ordering the
bill to third reading,
And the ayes and noes being called for and
ordered, there were ayes 5, noes IL.
Those who voted in the affirmative we're,
Messrs. Lott, Murray, Moot Oliver, and Ro-
lette-5.
Those who voted in the negative were,
Messrs. Ames, Dutton, Ludden, Mckee, Ran
dali, Russell. Ramsey, Stimson, Truax, Wells,
Wilcox and Speaker-l2.
So the House refused to order the bill to be
read third time"
This is all and everything appearing upon
the record in regard to the introduction and
final failure of this measure. We have itali-
ctsed the names Of those members, now candi-
dates before the people, who at various stages
OF the bill, either gave it full or partial sup
port. 1t will be seen that Messrs. Murray,
Moot, and Louis N. Oliver went the full figure
from the outset. Murray and Oliver reported
the bill; Murray moved call of the House af-
ter 1t came out of Committee of the whole when
he found Moot and others of its friends absent,
and dangerous amendment pending; Murray,
Moot, Oliver and Stimson voted against that
same amendment, which wa, to kill the bill by
striking out the enacting clause ; Murray wish
ed, after this motion had failed, to put the bill
through by railroad speed, and so he moved to
have 1t "engrossed and read a third time to-
morrow )" for which motion Murray, Moot, and
Oliver voted and then, this being lost, the reg
ular question to engross and finally read upon
time not defined, coming up, Murray, Moot,
Oliver and Stimson voted for it, and so it was
carried. Next, on the final passage, away goes
Murray. Moot and Oliver on the same track, but
this time without success.
By this analysis, it will be seen, as already
remarked, that Messrs. Murray, Moot and Oil
yer were determined to put the bill through at
all hazards, and also that Mr. Stimson voted in
favor of it upon t,co test questions. He was
playing game of hide and SEEK which will
be an interesting study to men who admire and
require consistency at the hands of their public
servants Had he so desired, he could have
killed the bill by voting to strike out the enact
ing clause, but that motion was lost by a tie
Uote-he in the negative. Then again, upon
the engrossment, which Jefferson, and all other
writer's upon parliamentary usage sets down
as the first great question upon which the
friends and opponents Of bill must show their
respective hands, Mr.. Stimson let's the second
opportunity slip of voting against the measure
but on the contrary went dead for it, The mat
ter is made the more decided in this case from
the fact. that the rules of our House of Repre-
sentatives, unlike those of most other legisla-
tive bodies do not admit Of the amendment of
a bill after it is ordered to be engrosscd, ex-
cept by general consent. Finally, upon the
last heat, Stmson rode the opposition horse,
and helped 10 distance Murray, Moot and Oil
yer.
Says Jefferson in his Manual of Parliament |
airy Practice, (pages 81 and 62) speaking of
this question to engross bill -
"The bill being now as perfect as its friends
can make it, this is the proper stage for those
opposed to make their first at |
tack: All attempts at other periods are with |
disJointed efforts; because many who do not |
expect to be in favor of the bill, ultimately. are
willing to let it go on to its perfect state to |
take time to examine it themselves, and to hear
what can be said for it; knowing that, after all,
they have sufficient opportunities of giving II
their veto Its two last stages, therefore. are
reserved for this, that is to say, on the question
Whether it shall be engrossed and read a third
first of these is usually the most interesting
contest because then the whole subject is new
and engaging. and the minds of the members
having not yet been declared by any trying
vote, the issue is the more doubtful In this
stage, therefore, is the main trial of strength
between its friends and opponents and it be-