St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1894-02-03
THAT INSANITY LAW
SENATOR DAVIS, or ST. PEER, re-
PLIES TO SENATOR TAWNEY,
HISTORY OF THE MEASURE.

HISTORY OF THE MEASURE.
Tawncy's Premature Crush" Into
Print-HOw the Bill Was Con.
sidered-The Chief Fight Was
on the Number of Trustees
No Question as to the Constitu-
tionality Raised in the Lcgis-
lature-Tawney ATTENDED to
the Legal Part"
Special to the Globe.
ST. PETER. Feb. 2. Considerable
comment having arisen over articles re-
Gently appearing in the Minneapolis
! Tribune with reference to the lunacy
law enacted by the last legislature, and,
by reason of purperted interviews, the
accuracy of which is doubted. GLOBE
reporter today interviewed Senator G.
X. Davis, who was chairman of the
senate committee on hospitals for the
insane, and who personally had charge
of the bill which became a law. When
asked concerning the supreme court de-
cisiOn recently made. he stated that it
would not be becoming OH his part to
question the SoundneSs of the decision.
If followed to the logical conclusion, it
would prevent boards of health from
quarantining cases of smallpox, scarlet
fever, diphtheria. etc., without a jury,
as such patients were deprived of their
liberty, and, apparently, with
out due process, of law. If the
commitment of the insane is rel
egated to the probate code of 1888, Sen
ator Davis argued that there was not as
much safeguard as under the law of
1898; under the code the probate judge
simply makes an order directed TO two
reputable persons, one of whom shall
be physician and the other without
any qualification except that of being
reputable" and the judge himself
shall constitute jury 10 examine the
alleged insane person. Upon such ex-
animation it seems to be left to the pro-
bate judge to only examine such wit
nesses as he may think necessary, and
on the part of the alleged insane person
iO CoI UC OASOPs
such as the judge thinks proper. In
other words, this judge of probate issthe
sole arbiter as to method of procedure
and competency of his associate jurors"
Senator Davis attention being called
to Senator Tawney's claim that if his
bill, Senate File No. 81, had passed, the
present trouble would have been
avoided, Mr.. Davis said:
IT,. 10 y i,,Er
early i'll the session and went to the
proper committee. immediately there
after joint session of the committees
of both houses was held. and there were
numerous meetings held for the next
two months. The meetings were open,
but Mr.. Tawney did not appear or ask
to be heard. During such meetings the
secretary of the former board of trus-
tees. Mr.. Tyler, and other members of
the board were present and took part
in the deliberations of said committee.
MIR. Tyler Informed me and other MEM
beers of the committees that he, as one
of committee of the board of trustees,
had spent several months i'll
preparing Senate File So, and
in doing so had Incorporated
therein the best features of the laws of
many of the Eastern states. and es
peclally that of New York, and that ne
had made great study of the subject.
Therefore the committee deferred to
his Judgment in most of the matters,
ard there were only two or three queS-
tons involved in which the committee
took issue with Mr.. Tyler, foremost of
which was the number that should
constitute the board of trustees. Mr..
| Tyler desiring nine, as named III 5. f..
| So, and the committee deciding upon
1 txyIl Of nr mol hHI IF
| tention was the proposition to cOnStl-
| tute board consisting of three per-
| sons to be knows as the Estate 'commiS.
sioners in lunacy," with headquarters
| in st. Paul, and also the appropriation
| of "a, 500 annually for theil salary and
| expenses. This was objected to by the
| committee, and was not Incorporated in
| the present law. otherwise the bills S.
F. So and S. f. 465 were almost identi-
Cal in their essential features.
Greater safeguards in fact were
| thrown about the alleged insane in the
committee than in the Tawney bill. In
his bill it was optional whether the
| judge or commissioner should visit the
| alleged insane person, while in ours
! they were compelled to. The provision
| that the county attorney ''shalP' appear
| for the alleged insane was in our
bill and not in Mr.. Tawney's. Mr..
| Tawney endeavored to have his bill
| substituted for, and Senator Allen tried
| to increase the trustees from five to
| nine, out both were defeated. and Sen
| ator Tawney took no further apparent
| interest in the bill. At no time in the
| senate did Senator TaWney ever Ques-
| ton the conStitutionality OF any part or
| portion of the bill as passed. In fact,
he seemed to be well satisfied with its
legal status, for while it was being dis
cussed he stated in open senate, in
answer to query of mine as to what
part or portion of S. F. So he had drawn
or supervised, that he had attended
to the "legaf' part only.
In justice to Senator Smith l will say
that he took very little part in the con-
structlon or enactment of the bill, and,
as far as the record shows, seldom, if
ever, voted upon any amendment or any
matter pertaining to the bill, and the re-
port that l had declared, either by in
situation or direct assertion, that Sem
ator John Day Smith was responsible
for the passage of the act, is not true.
Those voting against the bill on its final
|. passage were Senators Ayers, Dean,
Donnelly, Hammer and Tawney. am
somewhat astonished that Senator Taw-
ney should so hastily rush into print
and frantically attempt to screen him.
self and throw the blame upon others
by statements which are wholly unWar-
ranted by the records.