St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1885-02-13


shown but four absentees. The doors were
ordered closed, and, two of the absentees
having been mustered. further procecdin gs
under the call were dispensed with and the
bill read and put upon its passage. Follow
ing is the vote in detail:
YEAS.
Becker, Evans. Naeseth,
BJorge, Fiddes, Olson,
Blackburn, Flynn, Pattee,
Bradford, Foster, Peterson, P.
Brown, Haradson, Peterson, J. W.
Bruce, Hample, Piaisance,
Bnrlingame, Hoimstrom, Porter,
2yOrum, Hush Reese,
Byrne, Johnson, Reinhard,
Game, Lee, Saettre,
Caneff, Leland, Skinner,
Capser, Lewis, Smith. j.
Canning, Lenau, Snider,
Carson. Lightey, Spaulding,
Colester, Mckinney, Stordock,
Coulter, McKusick, Sweetser,
Cornish, McLaren, Teubert,
Daniels, Mcmillan, Tinnis,
Deike, Mcguire, Thacker,
Downs, D. Maland, Thompson,
Downs, II. Mason, Wall,
Drake, Kitchener, Warner,
Dyar. Morse, Wear.
Edmond, Muzzy, Webster,
Ende, Myers, Wendelschaffer,
Erickson, Nachbar, Wigley,
Mr.. Speaker-79.
NAYS.
Batchelder, Hendrickson, Pratt,
Baumgarten, Holland, Sadley,
Bean, Howes, Sheehaa,
Case, Iltis. Smith. r. A.
Durant, Knox, Snow,
German, Martin, Stephen,
Griffin, Murphy, Turrel-21.
Not voting-Felzer
Pared-Simpson and Valentine.
EXPLAINING THEIR VOTES,
AS their names were called several MEM
bers explained their votes, the first being Mr..
Capser, of Stearns. He said there were
features in the bill he could endorse, others
that he would rather have seen amended
and still others omitted entirely. The senti-
lnent in his district was for such legislation
as should give the people free and open
grain market He confessed that be was not
thoroughly informed as to some of the pro-
visions of the bill, aud he thought many
other members were like him in that respect.
AS he did understand it went farther than it
should in some respects, and he feared some
OF its warmest advocates would wish their
work undOne before a year had passed.
However, as he was informed by two letters
he had received, his constituents desired the
passage of the till; he would place the re-
sponsibiity for his act upon them, and vote
for the bill.
Mr. Daniels, of Olmsted, stated he was not
at all satisfied with the bill, but ne wanted 10
get rid of it and give the senate aud oppor-
tunity to amend it. He would therefore vote
aye.
Mr.. Durant said the bill involved provis-
ions of grave import, many Of which, too,
would initiate against the interests OF his
constituents. He believed if the bill WAS
passed and became law with some of its
features retained, twelve months would not
pass before the people would be clamoring
for an extra session of the legislature to
either amend it or repeal it entire. Section
l6 provides an iron-clad against any discrim-
ination in the matter of long and short hauls,
a provision that would operate disastrously to
the state at large, and especially so to many
Industries. He had earnestly sought
to eliminate this Objectionable fea
tuIe but had failed. Section IS,
which guaranteed an absolutely open grain
market and placed the large aud small ship
per on precisely the same general footing is
d provision he earnestly desired to support,
but as ne could not do it without voting for
other provisions that would strike a serious
blow at the prosperity of the state, be should
be compelled to vote no on the bill.
Mr.. Evans, Of Hennepin, while freely ac-
knowledging that the bill contained some
bad features. said that he also recognized
that there were serious evils connected with
the present transportation system of the
statc-evils that demanded Il radical cure
aud as the present. bill seemed to be the best
i,at er,rt11 ha ha vnt.
Mr. Martin, OF WinOna, said there were
some good features in the bill. but that
others iu it would materially injure his con-
stituents, aud believing that the evil prepon-
derated he should in obedience to his judy
ment vote no.
Mr.. Muzzy, of Otter Tail, was decidedly
opposed to some of the provisions OF the bill,
but as his constituents demanded some such
measure he should vote aye.
Mr.. Pratt, Of Washington, said he should
vote against the bill because he believed its
provisions would be found injurious 10 the
best interests of the state
Mr.. Valentine, of Wiuoua, said his col
league, Mr.. Simpson, who desired to vote
against the hill, was necessarily absent, aud
had desired him favOring the bin to pair
with him. He therefore should not vote, but
he desired to be understood as favoriug the
bill, for the good old Democratic
reason that he believed its operation and en-
forccment would confer the greatest good
upon the greatest number. II might do in
jury In individual cases, but there was no
question to his mind that the great railroad
corporations were becoming to omuiverous
that they were demanding too great share
Of the earth, aud that it was time for the
state 10 step in and impose reasonable re-
strictious upon them, which the bill did in
bis opinion.