The Worthington advance. [volume] (Worthington, Minn.) 1874-1908, 1891-03-05
LEGISLATIVE NOTES.
What the 27th Minnesota LeElslsturo d
Doing

What the 27th Minnesota Leglslsturo q
Doing.
ST. PAUL, Feb. 28.-The work of the
week, in fact the first real work of the
session was the settlement of the prohi.
bitiou question by the House. For two
years at least the law will remain as it
is. Early in the session Mr. Bjorge in.
PRODUCED a bill providing for the sub.
mission to the people an amendment to
the constitution providing for the pro-
hibitiOn of the manufacture or sale OF
intoxicants. II was referred to the
committee on temperance, of which Mr..
Wacek, of LIE Sueur was the chairman.
Nothing was heard of the measure until
the 25th, when it was returned to the
House with two reports, majority and
minority. The majority favoring in
definite postponement while the minor
ity thought the people should be al
lowed to pass upon the question. The
majority report was signed by
Wacek, Battley, Capser, Booren,
Smith, Hagney and Diepolder. The
minority report was signed by Ongstad,
A. Thompson, Gilmore and Starks. In
support of the adverse report, the ma
jority submitted reasons for their &C.
tions which are as follows:
Is this proposed amendment of the
constitution necessary" within the
meaning of the word us used in the
constitutio? There is the same distinc-
ton to be kept in view in this connec-
ton between the ordinary and what
may be termed the constitutional mean
ings of the word that there is between
law of the constitution and laws enact
ed by the legislature. Laws for the
regulations of the social relations of
men ore necessary, but it does not fol-
low that their place is in the organic
law of the state. The main function of
a constitution is to define and limit the
powers of the legislature which, except
as so limited, exercises supreme power.
The proposed amendment is obnox-
ious because it further restricts the lib
critics of the citizen, while it does not
add to the power already possessed by
the legislature, and seeks to put the
restriction beyond the control of the
legislature and make it difficult, If no t
impossible of abrogation.
The Judgment of each member on
this question must be based on one of
two grounds:
Frst-There must have been and
now be strong popular demand for
the measure coming from the voters OF
the state. Evidence of the existence
of the demand will always be found
either in the presentation to this body
of numerous petitions, coming from tue
various sections of the state, asking fur
the passage of the measure; or in a gen.
eral agitation and discussion of the
matter in the newspapers of the state.
Second-In the absence of the fore
going there must be clear conviction,
based on facts as distinguished from
sentiment, in the minds Of the legisla-
tors, of the wisdom, the benifcence and
the constitutional necessity, of the
measure.
AS to the first there has not been pre-
sented to this house nor to this commit
tee single petition from any part of this
state asking for the passage of this bill.
The press of the state will be scanned
in vain to find any discussion of the
question. Nor do the demands of the
political organizations. save one, afford
any more evidence that there is any de-
sire among the people that this bill
pass. The Democratic party, casting
at the last election IS, S44 votes, opposes
it as sumptuary. The Republican party,
polling SS,11l votes, declares that the
''high license policy is the best and
most effective method of dealing with
the evils attendant on the liquor traf-
fic." The platform of the Alliance rep.
resenting the opinions of 3S,513 voters
is silent on the matter, while the only
political party in the state formed to
secure the adoption of the policy Of pro-
hibition pollcd in 1888. l7,02G votes and
in 1890 could muster but aga voters to
it's support. So far, then, as these votes
are indicative of the wishes, but one
voter in thirty favors it.
There is, therefore, almost an entire
lack of evidence of the existence of any
popular demand for the passage of this
bill, and each member must look else
where for reasons on which to base his
Judgment that this amendment is ''nec-
essary."
The minority report simply advised
that the bill do pass. This report was
supportc d by Messrs. B;orge, Knudson,
and Gildca, while Mr.. Stivers moved
that the majority report be adopted and
the minority report was accepted. The
roll call was taken on Mr.. Stivers' mo-
ton, which was virtually to decide the
question whether the bill should be in
definitely postponed or not. The vote
was as follows:
YEAS-59.
Ahlness. French A. Penny.