St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1885-02-11
any important particular, and probably in
the end defeat it.
ls To coNsrIrurIoNAL1rY

1
he thought the time had come to carefully
inquire whether the pending bill did not
contain provisions that were nm
constitutional, especially that part which
eonfers the power of establishing
rates upon board of commissioners. For
himself ne was not willing the bill should
pass and go to the senate against the protest
| Of almost the unanimous opinion OF the iu-
dietary com mittce of the house. Section 16
OF Tue Dill re-enacted the provisions of the
Reagan bill, and that portion of which gave
the com mission the discretionary power to
| fix rates, was, as he had been informed bv
one of the legal minds in the state. not a
/ railroad lawyer, clearly uncor sttutional. and
ne asked Tor the opinion of members
of the judiciary committee on that point.
In response to this Mr. Colester, chairman
OF the judiciary committee, took the floor.
In the first place he criticised the apparent
effort OF the committee to make the house
SWALLOW TIE BILL
in its entirety without letting an honest
effort be made to improve it. The bill in
question affects every interest in the state.
unless it was that of preaching He did not
pretend to say the bill was not a good one.
but ne did not believe it should be pushed to
vote before all its provisions
had been carefully considered, and that by
sections. Among the most i'm portant questions
in the bill is that rela ting to the schedule of
rates IN section 81. He was not prepared to
say whether it was or was not constitutional.
but no one would deny it was comforting a
great power upon three men. Take that out
OF the bill and itwould be mere shell. The
Legislature does not attempt to do what its
constituents sent it here to do but pro-
pose to confer it upon three men. If consti-
tutional he did not believe it wise. The oues
ton whether the legislature can delegate its
power has never been denied. The copstitu
ton of Illinois, unlike that OF Minnesota.
| contains provision, giving the legislature
authority to enact laws regulating trans
portation. He had no doubt there would be
railroad legislation; there should be, but care
should be had to make a law which will
stand the test. If we can't have a good law
KICK IT ALL ASIDE.
In answer to Mr.. Thorn pson Mr.. Bur
lingame said the committee had no desire to
shut OF debate or to prevent amendment Of
the bill. but it did appeal to the friends OF
such legislation to dismiss their personal
preferences upon irnmaterial points, or to
assist In preventing the incorporation of
provisions, the effect of which would be to
destroy the real purposes sought to be accom-
plished by the pending measure.
Mr.. Drake said he was convinced that
notwithstanding the honest effort of the com
mittee to perfect the bill it should be amended
| in some particulars, but he hoped and be
lieved no amendment would be entertained
intended solely TO weaken and defeat the
purposes OF the bill.
at this point, upon motion o. Mfr. Myers.
the committee rose and reported progress,
when the house took a recess to 2 o. IN.
DEBATE RESUMED.
Upon being called to order for the after
noon session the rules were suspended on
m otion of Mr.. Myers TO take up the railroad
bill. He then moved that the bill be read q
third time and put upon its passage.
Mr.. Durant asked il the effect Of the mo-
tlon, If adopted. would be to cut off debate
and amendment
Speaker Gibbs replied it would.
Mr.. Durant regretted to see a disposition
to prevent fair ard reasonable cunsidera-
ton of the measure. The whole people were
| interested in 1t, and members should desire
10 make it as perfect ss possible. He did not
suppose the most enthusiastic friend or
the principle involved would claim that
the pending bill was perfect. He desired
| to offer an amendment which vitality
affected his constituents, and he presumed
other members were similarly situated and
he claimed it was but right all such should
be heard.
Mr.. Myers said he had not supposed his
motion would go as far as it did, and he
would therefore withdraw it,
The house then, on motion of Mr.. Drake,
| resolved itself into committee OF the whole
with Mr.. Thompson in the chair, and censiJ-
Grafton of the bill was resumed.
Mr.. Pattee moved the bill be con sidered by
sections.
| Mr.. Brown asked IL the motion Of Mr.
| Stordock, made at the morning session that
the DILL be reported for passage, was not before
! the house.
The chair ruled not.
| Mr.. Drake was opposed to any lengthy dis
cussion of the bill, but was ready to receive
the enlightenment that would follow consid-
eraation of it section by section.
WELL INFORMED or ITS MERITS.
Mr.. Thscker said the house was well in
formed Of the general merits of the bill. The
| only issue was as to the consttutionality Of
some of lts provisions. Settle these points
and the house would be ready to act. He
closed By calling upon members Of the judi
/ ciary committee to point Out the uncou stitu-
| tional provisions.
| Mr.. Foster, Of the Judiciary com
mittee, said he did not know Of any
/ provisions that were not consttu-
| tional, but there were provisions he
desired to see changed. He did not approve
of section one. and he desired to amend it
to limit the time Of service Of mmission-
ers to two years. He also objected TO the
nnr p tha hrn "a nd ha
hoped an opportunity would be given for
| Offering amendments.
! Mr.. Pattee claimed members were not
ready TO pass upon the bill In Its entirety,
aud the effort 10 force such action seemed to
him
An EFFORT AT BCLLDoZTNG.
/. was the solemn duty of mem bers to calmly
consider the bill. He did not see why mem
bers were so frightened at the mere idea Of
discussion. He was a friend OF tue bill,
| but he believed IL should be
amended. He also believed that he could
convince every fair minded member that
| such amendments would improve the bill.
As now, he believed it would injurc in Ger
tain directions instead Of doing good He
/ briefly suggested some Of the provisions
which ought TO be changed, indicating es-
1 pecialiy the proviso to section 16 and section
/ 19, which define the proceedings for recov-
| cry OF damages by action against railroad
/ com paDy, claiming as to the latter, that the
I provision making fine recovered payable
| into the funds OF the county treasury, made
counties directly interested in the recovery
Of such fines, ana therefore
LIKELY TO CREATE A PREJUDICE
against the railroad company. At the con-
c!usion Of his remarks the motion To take up
and consider the bill, section By section, was
adopted.
Tue title Of the bill was agreed TO.
Section / read, Mr. Evans offered an
amendment to make the board Of five mem