St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1889-03-05
In Committee of the Whole
the House Recommends
the Act
AS a Measure of Developing.
the North End of the
State.
Strong Arguments and Ap-
peals Made on Both
Measures.

passage of the Roberts bill to confirm
the grant. The debate upon the bills
was not over four hours. AlYah East
man was in the chair.
Representative Lightly move that
these two bills be made special orders
for next Wednesday. -
Representative Graves-The commit
tee of the whole cannot make a special
order for the house.
Chair-The point is well taken.
Representative Graves-I move that
ii. f. 201 be reported back for indefinite
poStpOnement and III. +. 572 be recon-
mended to pass.
Representative Hay-Why cannot this
motion be divided?
Representative Morgan-The two bills
are so blended together that | see no
necessity for dividing them.
Representative Hay-I am not familiar
with the subject matter of these bills,
but as | understand it one forfeits a
grant and the other extends the time of
grant-twO widely different subjects.
Representative GraVeS-I will Sepa-
rate the motion.
Representative Flynn think it Just
as well for us to settle this question to-
night as any other time. This question
of division is only made by the opposi-
ton for delay and in the hope of pre-
venting action.
Representative Husher-I disagree
with the gentleman from Morrison.
There is no reason for hurry with bills
as important as these.
Representative HOyt-In as important
matter as this L can see DO reason for
haste. Haste is unfair and the people
of this state have the right to be heard
on these bills.
Representative Searle-CannOt the
questions in these bills be discussed
now?
Representative Graves COMPATIBILITY
They can be discussed now, and am
constitutionally opposed to special Or
ders. have yielded to division of
this motion because l would not take a
seeming advantage: but | will say
frankly that l am friend to one side of
this question, and that side is best
served by discussion now.
Representative Searle-The house is
not intelligently prepared to discuss
these bills now, and think time should
be given for thatreasOn.
Representative Willrich-The only
information | have eOn these bills has
been obtained from the newspapers, and
with all due respect to the gentlemen
of the press, do not consider them as
reliable. This question can and ought
to be discussed tonight.
Representative Hanke-I am not pre-
pared to vote. and | think that we
should go slow. We ought to discuss
this matter thoroughly before taking a
vote. L desire to see this matter made
a special order. ~ -i'-7.'
Representative Stebblns-We can dis
cuss this tonight, and then if not pre-
pared to vote, adjourn.
Representative ESteS-Neyer before
in this house has the request of an au-
thor of a bill to defer action been de-
MED. Let US not deny this customary
courtesy now. am not deeply inter
ested in these bills except as repre-
sentative of the people.
Representative ComStock-Our COM
mittee had these bills under considera-
ton many days, and made our reports
unanimously. This house is as well
prepared now as it will be week from
now.
Representative Capser-As a repre-
every railroad meeting held since l
came here, and am prepared to act,
and so is every member of the house, l
believe.
Representative Hanke-We should
thoroughly understand both bills be-
fore acting OH either.
Representative Flynn-There is no
unfairnesS in taking up this bill on
general orders tonight.
Representative CroSsfield reviewed
the action of the committee on public
lands, and urged immediate discussion.
Representative Hanke urged delay as
matter of justice to both sides.
Representative Searle-l amend the
motion of the gentleman from st. Louis
by moving that we make these bills
special order for next Friday at noon.
Representative KeyeS protested
against the persistent making of special
orders, and insisted on prompt action.
Representative Holmstrom - AS
member Of the public lands committee
am not prepared to vote now.
The. chair ruled Representative
Searle's amendment out of order, but
Col. Graves asked that vote be taken
upon it.
Representative Ives-It is about time
that we were having some discussion
upon this question.
Representative c. r. Davis-It seems
little strange TO me that the author of
this bill is not prepared for discussion.
The chair put the Searle amendment,
and it was lost.
Representative Searle-I am very
sorry, indeed, that with the eyes of the
whole state upon this house tonight,
the committee on public lands has been
unable to furnish us with no more in
formation than it has. The friends of
the Duluth& Winnipeg have also failed
TO give us light. l am not prepared to
vote on this bill any other way than for
forfeiture. make this assertion here
and now that if the committee on pub
lie lands has recommended House File
No. POI to be indefinitely postponed and
House File No. 572 to pass, they have
hung their report upon mighty slen-
der thread, and one that this house can
not afford to depend upon.
He reviewed the legal history of the
Duluth & Iron Range and the Duluth
81 Winnipeg grants, dating from 1875
and 1873. He dwelt particularly upon
the fact that the Duluth Il Winnipeg act
of 1878 contained two subjects in the
title and body and was clearly an I'M
constitutional act.
1.-The supreme court of Michigan has
we'll held that no law shall contain
more than one subject. This is a
proposition OF law. And this act of
1878, under this rendering. is null and
void, and this road has no claim to these
lands. Nor in equity did the legisla-
ture of 1878 understand that in passing
this act that it was making two grants.
1t understood that it was simply trans
ferring the Duluth & Iron Range grant
if forfeited to the Duluth & Winnipeg.
l am told on eminent authority that the
gentleman who introduced this bill in
the house of 1887 soiemnly assured that
body that the bill simply transferred a
grant that was expected to be forfeited.
With the constitutional amendment
of 1881. by which we devoted our swamp
lands to our school and charity funds,
we are prevented from ever making a
new railroad grant, and the claims of
the Duluth & Winnipeg must rest upon
the unconstitutional act of 1878. And
two years ago the legislature refused to
extend the timeof the grant of this
road. ~
1t is well known that the last con-
gress has forfeited defaulted Northern