Mower County transcript., 1891-03-04
LEGISLATIVE NOTES.

LEGISLATIVE NOTES.
What the 27th Minpesot. Legislature Il
Doing.
Sr. PAUL, Feb. 26.-The work of the
week, in fact the first real work of the
session was the settlement of the prohi
bition question by the House. For two
years at least the law will remain as II
is. Early in the session Mr.. Bjorge In
troduced bill providing for the sub
mission to the people an amendment t
the constitution providing for the pro
hibition of the manufacture or sale OF
intoxicants- It 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 ac-
tions which are as follows:
Is this proposed amendment of the
constitution necessary within the
meaning of the word as used in the
constitutio? There is the same distinc-
tion 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 are 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
rs so limited, exercises supreme power.
The proposed amendment is obnox-
ious because it further restricts tie 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
impossible of abrogation.
The Judgment of each member on
this question must be based on one of
two grounds:
FIR ,tThere must have been and
now be a 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 the
various sections of the state, asking for
the passage of the measure; or in 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 81, ,844 votes, opposes
it as sumptuary. The Republican party
polling ss,111 votes, declares that the
''high license policy is the best and
most effective method of dealing with
the evils attendant on the liquor traf
fc." The platform of the Alliance rep
resenting the opinions of 1851 voter:
is silent on the matter, while the only
political party in the state formed tx
secure the adoption of the policy of pro
hibition polled in 1883, 17,026 votes anc
in 1880 could muster but s,424 voters t<
it's support. So far, then, as these votes
are indicative of the wishes, but ont
voter in thirty favors it.
There is, therefore, almost an entire
lack of evidence of the existence of an,
popular demand for the passage of thi
bill, and each member must look else
where for reasons on which to base hi
J.. Judgment that this amendment is ''nec
essary."
The minority report simply advises
that the bill do pass. This report wa
supported by Messrs. Bjorge, Knudson
and Gildea, while Mr.. Stivers move
that the majority report be adopted an
the minority report was accepted. TIL
roll call was taken on Mr.. Stivers' me
! ton, which was virtually to decide tn
: question whether the bill should be ir
, definitely postponed or not. The vot
was as follows:
YEAs-59.
, | Ahlness, French, A. Penny,
Ames, Furlong, Price,
Anderson, Gallagher, Reeve,
Barrett, Hagney, Ringwald,
Battley, Harwick, Roach,
i Bell, Huntington, Searle,
Berning, Helmes, Setterlund,
i Booren, Kendall, Sikorski,