The representative. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1893-1901, 1895-01-30
TAKING RAILROAD LANDS.
A QUESTION ANSWERED.
How the Vote Stood.
We have received the following let

Enclosed you will find 80 cents to
pay up for my arrears and a half a
year in advance.
cannot do without the REPREsEN-
TATIvE, as it has become welcome
guest in our house and its coming is
always looked for with delight.
Will you kindly answer a question
through the REPRESENTATIVE? A
friend and myself had an argument
about "the Markham Pill" one day;
he claiming that the bill was defeated
mainly by PopuliSts and Democrats;
and that only very few Of the Re
publicans voted against it. l did not
agree with him, but as | had forgot
ten how that act stood in regard to
the several party votes, | thought I
should try to find out through the
REPRESENTATIVE.
Will you kindly give it your consid-
Grafton: Yours very respectfully,
CARL GILBERTSON.
The bill referred to was House File
No. II; it was introduced in the House
Jan. 9th, 1s93 by Mr.. Markham.
There was no fight against it in the
House, and it passed Feb s, 1893, by a
vote of 93 ayes, and l nay, Mr. Elliott.
The great battle was fought in the
Senate and it was a tremendous one
Numerous petitions were presented
in favor of the passage of the bill. On
March I'd, the Attorney General, in
obedience to a resolution of the SEN
ate, sent in communication, in
which he favored the bill, and de-
clared that its passage would not in
validate the gross earnings tax. This
was the great bone Of contention. On
February %, 1893. the Judiciary Com
mittee Of the Senate, reported the
bill back with two reports; one, signed
by the majority Of the committee, re-
commended that the bill be indefinite-
ly postponeG; the other, a minority
report, signed by Senators Seyatson,
Kiester, Donnelly and Tawney, with
a recommendation that it pass.
The decisive vote was reached March
9TH, 1893. The bill went to Commit
tee Of the whole and was reported
back with a recommendation that it
be Indefinitely postponed. The ques-
tion came on sustaining the report of
the committee, which would kill the
bill.
Senator Stevens, (St. Paul. moved
an amendment to the bill that it
should not be construed to repeal the
grossearnings tax Lost: yeas 2l,
nays %.
Yeas:-Al'en, Barr, BoRCHERT,
Canestorp, Craig, Crandau, Doughcty,
Day, Dedeoa, DoNNELLY, Geissei,
CRAZE, Kelly, Kiester, LADUE, LoM-
MEN, PRoBsTFIELD, SEvATsoN,
Stevens, Tawney and WooD.
We print the Populists in capi tai
letters, the Republicans in italic
and the Democrats in Roman type
Nays:-AWrs, Bell, Brown, Bmhhan,
Craven, Daris, Dea1l Eaton, ERICk-
SON Guderion, Hammer, HoMPE, Kel-
Ter, Leavitt, Lienau, Little, McHale,
Mcmillan, March, Mayo, Morse, MOTT.
NELSON, Peterson, J. w., Phillips, San
born, Smith, p. r. Smith John Dan,
Stockton
Then Senator John Day Smith Of
fered an amendment that if the bill
should be interpreted by the courts
to invalidate the gross-earnings tax
the bill itself should be null and void
Lost:-yeas "A. nays 26.
The affirmative vote was the same
as the previous one, with the addition
Of Ayers, Mott and John Day Smith.
The negative vote was the same as be
fore less those three names.
Then came the decisive vote, which
was practically vote to indefinitely
postpone the bill to tax railroad
lands. Those who voted aye, Ito indie
tinitely postpone.) were 80; the mega
tive vote was 20: as follows:
Yeas:-Ayers, Bell, Brown, Bmkhat
Cr0nd0U, Craven. Daris, Dean. Eaton
ERICKSON, Guderian, Hammer, HoMPE
Keller, Leavitt, Lienau. Little, Nc
Hale, Mcmillan, March, Mayo, Morse
MORT, NELSON, Peterson J. w..
Phillips, Sdnbo'n, Smuh, E. r., Smith,
John Day, Stockton.
Nays:-1llen, Bd,r, BoRcHERT,
Canestorp, Craig, Daugherty, Day.
Dedoa, DoNNELLY. Geissel. CRAZE,
KELLY, kiester, LADUE, LoMMEN,
PROEsTFIELD. SEvATsoN, ,Sterens
Tdrncy and WOOD.
The vote will be found recorded on
the 434th page of the Senate Journal.
1893. An analysis Of the vote shows
that Of those who voted to kill the
bill II were Republicans, II were
Democrats and were Alliance men
OF those who voted in favor of the
bill, 9 were Republicans, ) Democrats
and s were Alliance men. There were
five more Republicans voted to kill
the bill than voted in favor of it: niue
more Democrats voted to indefinitely
postpone the bill than voted for it:
while with the Alliance senators this
was reversed-four voted against the
bill and eight for it. We count Sena-
tor Kelley, Of Houston county, in the
foregoing with the Democrats, but he
was more of Populist than ANYTHING
else during the session, and he was
the Peoples Party candidate for
State Senator in the last campaign.
So that there were really nine popu-
lists for the bill to four against it.
If not an Alliance senator had voted
to Indefinitely postpone the meas
ure there were enough Demo