St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1894-09-21
HITS AT PENNEY.
8. A. Stockwell Gives His Side OF
the "Record" Controversy.


ex-member Of the house of representa-
tives of the state, gives the other side to
the controversy which came within an
ace of disrupting the Democratic con-
vention last Wednesday,:
''My integrity, veracity and motives
having been called in question by Mr..
Penney on account of my opposition to
his nomination as special judge of the
municipal court at yesterdays Demo-
cratic convention, desire to reply to
his statement.
1.-THE anti-Pinkerton bill was intro
duced in the house of representatives
by myself on Jan. IA. 1891, and referred
to the Judiciary committee. (See page 80
of the journal of the house.) The bill,
as introduced into the house, was more
radical than it could be and pass. Ac-
cordingly l went before the judiciary
committee and agreed to certain amend
mentS. striking out some of its more
radical features, among them the clause
reported by Mr.. Penney as being the
clause that he considered unconstitu.
tlonai land by reason of which he claims
he opposed the bill. The bill was re-
ported back from the judiciary COM
mittee Feb. IA. 1891, with the recon-
mendation that the bill pass as
amended. (See page 242 of the
journal OF the house.) The
named day. (See p. 249 of the journal
of the house) The bill was considered
in committee of the whole on Feb. 25,
1891. (See p. 1858 of the journal of the
h0use.) AS those who are familiar
with the legislative proceedings will UNI
derstand this Is the time when a bill is
considered at length by all the men,
bers of the house. When the bill was
under consideration in the committee of
the whole. Mr.. Penney did everything
that he could do to defeat the favorable
consideration of the bill by filibustering
and Offering amendments that would
destroy the efficiency of the bill. The
last move he made was to try to have the
bill referred back to the judiciary COM
mittee to kill it. In this he failed. The
house was with me. and l succeeded in
passing the bill through the committee
Of the whole, with the recommendation
that the bill do pass. The bill had one
or two slight verbal amendments at this
time, but Mr.. PeDney's Objectionable
clause was not on it at any time after
it came from the judiciary committee,
and at no time were any votes taken
upon it i'll the house when it contained
the Objectionable clause. The bill had
been declared constitutional by Attor-
ney General Clapp and by Mr.. Child, his
assistant, the present attorney general
of the state, before its consideration in
committee of the whole. The bill
was placed on its third reading
and final passage as had passed the com
mittee of the whole, Feb. 20, 1891.
tSee page 1874 of the journal of the
house.) The bill received 80 votes for
1t and 80 votes against it. 1t required
SO votes to pass bill. Mr.. Penney is
recorded as voting No. (See page 39S
of the journal of the house) Accord
ingly the bill failed to pass. John A.
Keyes. now of Duluth, changed his vote
from Aye to No for the purpose of
moving reconsideration. Mr.. Keyes
moved the reconsideration of the bill
March a. 1891. (See page 43e of the
journal of the hOuse.) At this time the
bill received TO affirmative votes and 10
negative votes. Mr.. Penney is recorded
as voting Mo- (See page 436 of the
journal of the house.) The bill, having
received majority Of all members of
the house, passed. and was sent to the
senate. Please note, that as stated In
yesterdays convention, on the final
passage of the bill, Mr.. Penney noted
No. The bill had the same stormy
passage in the senate that it had in the
house, and finally reached general
orders IN the senate April II, 1891. The
bill failed to pass the senate by one vote
on its first consideration in that body. l
succeeded in having the bill reconsid-
cred through the courtesy of my friend,
Senator Guderian. Of Anoka. On the
reconsideration of the bill John Day
Smith agreed to support the bill, pro-
vided it was amended in slight par
ticular, Senator IgnatiuS DOnnelly
suggested an amendment, to which
Senator Smith agreed. The amendment
is as follows:
"'But nothing herein contained shall
prevent the employment of any de-
tective, resident or nonresident, by any
person or corporation, municipal or
otherwise, to obtain information as to
the commission of any crime. and to
report upon the same. but without au.
thOrity to make. arrest or bear arps.'
"The bill as amended passed the SEN
ate April II, 1891. The bill was referred
back. with request from lthe senate