St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1895-03-26

| not carry an appropriation, and is to
become operative when site of at
I least six acres shall have been donated
by the city of Duluth.
Senator Roverud introduced a resolu-
| ton to exclude lobbyists from the 1oor
, of the senate during sessions of that
| body Senator Keller gave notice of
debate, carrying the resolution over
| for at least one day.
| Senator Pottgieser sent up two pro-
| tests against the passage of the pro-
| prietary medicine bill
| Senators Stockton and Collister sent
up protests from old soldiers against
the passage of S. F. IFS, relating to the
soldiers aid fund.
The judiciary committee reported in
fafor of indefinite postponement of 5.
F. 584, which provides for appropriat-
! ing the income derived from the in
vestments in the internal improvement
| land fund to the internal Improvement
/ or road and bridge fund. Senator
Heneman's motion to place the bill
| upon general orders prevailed after a.
| short debate
| The Ramsey county delegation re-
| ported back S. F. 407 with recommen-
| dalton that it be passed as amended.
| The changes being that the salaries
| of the secretary of the water board
! be s., 500 instead of $1,000, and of the
| clerk of the municipal court 81, 500 in
stead of 81 800
HORIZONTAL REDUCTION.
Senator Wywan was in the chair
when the senate, in committee of the
whole considered Senator Culkins bill,
S. F. 395, which provides for fixing
maximum freight rate for distances
of sixty miles and under. The bill
declared it unlawful to charge more
than three-fourths of the present rates
after June l, 1895. Senator Culkin made
a lengthy speech upon the, merits of
the bill. He said that he was pre-
pared to amend the bill so as to pro-
vide for cut OF 10 per cent instead
of % per cent, or if that should not be
accepted to restrict the cut to fuel,
grain, live stock and lumber in carload
lots. He said that it was true that
the committee on railroads had rec
commended indefinite postponement, but
he was of the opinion the bill should
pass. He claimed that while the rail-
roads have losses in other states, yet
the state of Minnesota should not help
10 Dear Those losses WIleH lue people
desired reduction of rates. He had
been interviewed by laborers who told
him that if the bill should pass wages
of employees would be reduced. He
asked one of these men what wages he
was getting and was told that the man
was getting 1925 per day. Then his
mind went back to his people who are
able to get but 4S cents a bushel for
-,
He was asked questions by several
senators as to wages of the track men
and others, and said he thought some
of the men were not getting enough.
Senator Greer asked if any of the
railroads in the state had paid divi-
dends last year.
Senator Culkin proceeded with his
argument until asked by Senator How
ard if he had consulted with the rail-
road and warehouse commission about
introducing the bill.
Senator CuIkin-No, sir; am Min
nesota senator. Does the gentleman
ask the commission before introducing
bill? Senator Howard replied in the
negative amid a burst of applause.
Senator Johnson asked what effect
the bill would have upon the gross
earnings tax.
Senator Culkin said he thought it
would Increase the gross earnings
tax, and explained by stating that
farmers would use railroads more if
the rates were reduced, and would not
haul as much wheat in wagons.
Senator Yale asked why the reduc-
ton was made for distances of sixty
miles or under
Senator Culkin replied that it was as
easy to haul wheat 300 miles as it was
to haul it thirty-five miles, and would
not cost more in proportion to dis
lance.
NO POWER TO CUT.
Senator Stevens said the bill does not
provide for submitting to the railroad
and warehouse commission, or to the
courts, the reasonableness of the pro-
posed rate. He took the meaning of
the bill to be that it was a declara-
ton by the legislature of what should
be a reasonable rate. Addressing his
remarks to the legal point, and to
matters of common knowledge, he
contended that, under decision of
the supreme court, the bill would not
be legal. The court had decided that
the reasonableness of a rate must be
left to judicial inquiry.
Replying to a question of Senator
Culkin as to the right of the legisla-
ture to fix rates, Senator Stevens
quoted the constitutional provision to
the effect that the powers of the state
are divided into such as are legisla-
tive, judicial and executive. If the
power to exercise judicial functions
were intended to be conferred upon
hn lot,
for the courts. He was satisfied that
the bill interfered with judicial func-
tons, and was an exercise of power
unwarranted by the constitution.
Senator Stevens then spoke of the
development of the state being due to
railroads built by capital from abroad.
The state is a pivotal one in railroad
interests. If the legislature had power
to act in such matters this is not the
time to strike. The workingmen on
| railroads need a helping hand, and it
is not the time to do an act that may
result in distressing any class of peo-
| pie
Senator Spencer said he had no inter-
est i'll railroads. and was not Influenced
by any personal interest in considering
the bill. He spoke of the injustice of
a horizontal cut, such as proposed 1t
would also be bad policy to force a cut
in wages of the 10000 railroad employees
of the state by the passage of the bill.
| He favored encouraging roads rather
| than trying to pull them down.
Senator Heneman thought the bill
| should be amended so as to provide
for a reduction for longer distances
than sixty miles; otherwise there
would be discrimination against
towns just outside of the sixty-mile
limit
Senator Wyman said he believed in
treating railroads the same as other
lines of business. He did not believe
this bill would result in good to the
public. He had received almost an I'M
animous request from his constituents
to vote against this bill, and he op-
| posed it in Difference to that request,
and hapanSa he did NOT baIiva mould