The representative. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1893-1901, 1897-03-17
OUR LEGISLATIVE WORK,
WHY IT IS A FAILURE.

much OF us in the present session of
the House. II the members were left
to themselves they would sustain US,
and great good might be accomp-
llshcd. But they are worked upon by
all sorts Of robber influences: and the
outside Republicans tell them that we
are gaining all the creditaaf the ses
sion, and that they must ''set down
upon u.s." And the poor fools think
that all they have 60 do is to spread
their coat tails oyer us. and we will
disappear into oblivion forever. They
do not realize that the petty triumphs
of such an arena arc nothing to US;
and that we are only anxious that the
session should end that we may re-
turn to more congenial and more i'm
portant work. They do not perceive
that the best way to- streng then their
own party would be to help through
every good measure that any man of
any party might suggest. Whenever
they refuse to pass good bills they pile
up rocks into mountains that will fall
and crush them in 1898 and 1900.
II they can stand it, therefor, we
can.
Their refusal to even compel the
railroad corporations to put in plat
form scales, costing $75 each. at depots
where 100000 bushels OF grain are
shipped annually, (as demanded by Mr..
Rahilly and Mr.. Costello on behalf Of
tie State Farmers Alliancc), will
prove a vcritable Banquo's ghost to
them hereafter. Hon. Geo. NJ. Laing,
Republican, Of Window. Mimi, an ex-
cellent meml er Of the House, stated
that he knew of one case where ship
per loaded 5000 pounds Of barley into
Car and when it reached Omaha. its
place of destination, there were but
10000 pounds left in the car. But the
shipper had not had his barley
weighed at the depot in Window, and
and he will find it hard job to recov-
err the loss.
We argued that banker might just
as we'll refuse to count the money Of a
depositor, and give him a receipt for
the same, as a common carrier to re-
ceive the grain delivered to him with
out weighing it or giving a receipt for
it. Mr.. Rahilly sat beside us, and said
to us that he lost a large amount an
nually by underweights In his ship
ments from Lake City, and he could
not force the railroad companies to
give him receipt therefor.
We have no disposition to prosecute
or be unjust to the railroad CORPORA
tions. but it is this refusal to do JUS
tice in little things which gradually
accumulates mountain OF wrath
against them.
Then we worked hard to pass bill
to carry out the amendment TO the
constitution. recently made, (IS90). by
large popular vote, that in civil cases
tive-sxths of jury, Tor ten men out of
twelve), could render verdict. 1t is
now the custom OF corporations, CT
wealthy men, when sued, to bribe ore
or two members Of jury, and these
will hang" the jury, ii they can not
force the others to their way of think
ing. A breed OF creatures called "jury
tixerS" has grown upin the large cities,
who make this work a regular pursuit.
But it was in vain all these views were
| urged and the popular vote referred
to; the bill was doomed to speedy
death.
Then we did our best to secure an
act to provide that no man should be
Invested of real estate except upon
the verdict of Il jury OF his peers. This
is right that mas come down to him
since that day when the English bar
ons forced King John, at Runnymede,
to put it into Magma Carta, that the
right Of trial by jury should never be
denied.
Aud in the first batch of amend
ments to the Constitution of the
United States, proposed in 1889, at the
first session Of Congress, it was pro-
vided, Cart. vID.
In suits at common law, where the
value in controversy shall exceed $2O,
the right Of trial by jury shall be pre-
served, and no fact tried by jury
shall be otherwise re-examined in any
court of the United States, than ac-
cording to the rules Of the common
law"
And in Section or Article l, (Bill
of Rights, of the Constitution of Min
nesota, it is provided as follows:
THE right of trial by jury shall re-
main inviolate, and shall extend to all
cases at law, without regard TO the
amount in CONTROVERSY" %-
But in spite Of these plain provis-
ions the courts, which have been
steadily encroaching on public rights,
for hundred years,-refuse trial by
jury in cases where real estate is fore
closed on and relief is sought, on the
subtle pretensc that, such q suit is a
suit "in equity" although 1.-The stat
utes of Minnesota have abolished all
distinction in the method of proceed
ure in suits at law and suits in equity.
We have no Lord Chancellor, no eduity
courts and no equity writs. Never
theless il questions aoft, fact arise, in
cases where the party. applies for re-
lief from mortgage sale, as on the
question of usury, tile court refuses
jury, and tries the question Of fact it..
self. Why? Because the Jury being
made up Of plain people may sympa.
thizc with the debtor; while. the court,
bred in the narrow school of technical
law, will generally sympathize with
the creditor.