The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1897-03-04

that 1t was but that
| without this section the law would be
| constitutional and seasonable. He said
| something about coal costing 81 a ton
more than it should and made other
| covert threats at great corporations
Mr.. Won Lehe also advocated the
| striking out of section 4. He said he
wanted to repeat what he had said
yesterday that he did not believe in
| making the law apply to one kind of
| corporations and not teflabor organize
tons. He could see no difference be-
tween them.
Mr.. Mcdonald said he was opposed
to have the bill go back to general or
ders. 1t was exactly in shape to saw
what it meant. as, the bill had been
amended and if thei clause relating to
section 4 was stricken out the bill had
better be defeated. He quoted from A
decision in a Louisiana case in which
an antitrust law had been construed
to include labor organizations, and he
insisted the law must also be so held.
Mr.. Johns said heIwas perfectly will
ing to have the bill go back to general
orders. He subsequently said he did
not care what became of the measure.
and as he took no part in the effort
to defend 1t the house understood his
position.
Mr.. Feig made a speech in which he
urged striking out section a. He said
he spoke for the farmers and that thew
did not wish to be excepted from the
law against combinations to keep up
prices eff the bill is to be passed
with section in it we don't want It,"
said Mr.. Feig, and he gave notice that
he should vote against the measure
His reason was that the bill would be
declared class legislation by the courts.
and so would be held unconstitutional.
and he accused those who were oppos-
ing him with seeking to have the law
passed in the unconstitutional form so
as to defeat its purpose.
Mr.. Jacobson also took a hand in
defeating section f. He had no love
for labor organizations and yet he did
not say a word against them. He ac-
cCmpltshed his purpose by taking the
position that there never had been an
antitrust law that was a good one
Now this law, he said, had been found
to be a good one; it had been pro
nOunced constitutional by the courts
and he was opposed to changing or
amending it in any particular so as to
place it into doubt. He was afraid
section 4 would make it unconstitu-
tiOpal
MIR Douglas cited decisions from the
supreme court of Minnesota and other
courts holding that the exclusion Of
labor organizations was not unconsti-
tUtiOnal upon the ground of class leg
isiation, as that term is generally I'M
derstood.
Mr. Dahl again came TO the rescue of
the bill, by arguing that the law
against trusts lad been construed
against labor organizations, and, while
it was not the purpose Of this bill, it
was well to guard against any unin-
territorial injury to workingmen. The
house had put in a half hour on the
bill, and as it could not be amended
on third reading, he proposed that the
bill be laid on the table and then taken
UP under a suspension of the rules.
This was asSented to, SO that the house
could be free to amend the bill and the
measure was then taken up on it's mer-
its to a finish.
Mr.. Mcdonald spoke against the bill,
unless section 4 should be left in. He
said: 81 am satisfied this bill will
never be resorted to except by organ
lied capital against organized labor
Mr. Douglas moved to amend the
motion which had been made by Mr..
Fcig, to strike out section 4, by strik-
ms cut only that reference to farmers
and leaving the exception in favor of
labor organizations. This seemed
happy solution of the proposition. 1t
gave the country members what they
wanted, and it left the law clear in
re gard to it's intent regarding labor
organiza tons.
But it was not what Mr.. Feig want
ed. He argued strongly upon the point
of unconstitutiOnality. Judge Hicks
also followed this line of argument.
But he did not dodge the issue, like
hIr. Feig. He said he believed it just
as bad 10 be robbed by a combination
of labor men as to be robbed by a great
trust. He also got back at Mr.. Doug
las for a little personal drive made
Tuesday on the score of consistency.
Mr.. Douglas replied and pointed out
that if it was intended to legislate
against labor organizations, the house
should consider this as a separate
measure. Mr.. Feig replied that if there
was occasion to recognize labor organi-
cations it should come in as a separate
bill and he promised to support it, if
satisfactory.
Mr. Stockwell spoke against striking
out the exception in favor of labor or
CARNATIONS. He characterized these
as the yOke-fellow Of the common
school system, and said they had done
more to teach true Americanism than
any other cause outside of the schools.
Mr.. StOckWell had taken the precau-
ton to send to Georgia and had copy
of the Georgia law, which he exhibited
when Mr.. Feig wanted to know wheth-
er section 4, which he held unconsti-
tutional, was in the Georgia law. Mr..
StockWell read 1T and made the point
that it completely refuted the argu-
ment of unconstitutionality made by
Mr.. Feig. Mr. Cray spoke against sec
ton as tending to throw a cloud upon
the constitutionality of the act.
When the bill came up for passage
Messrs. COe, GOss, Laybourn, Martin
and Stockweu explained their votes. all
saying that they considered the bill a
direct menace to labor organizations.
Mr.. Martin made his maiden speech
upon this occasion. He, said he believ-
ed that the direct object of striking out
section 4 was to threaten the right of
laboring men to organize. But he hoped
the time would never come when any
court or any legislature would attempt
to put such law into execution, as he
did not believe they would consent to
be robbed of their right to peaceable
assembly to take steps to keep up or
increase their wages or improve their
conditions.
The sixteen votes against the bill
were: Messrs. Coe, Davis, Foell, Eros
lee. Goar, Goss, Hall, Hill, Laybourn,
Lehman, Martin, Mattson, Mcdonald,
Snodgrass, Stockwell and Vail.
EXPENSES OF UNIVERSITY.