The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1899-02-19

The house yesterday passed the bill
appropriating $19975 to the Minnesota
Sugar Beet company over. the veto of
Gov. Lind. Four more votes than the
necessary two-thirds were secured to
do the trick two of the minority party
joining hands with the Republicans to
override the action Of the governor.
During the discussion of the pig iron
bounty bill on Friday, Mr.. Dwinnell
(RepD, of Hennepin, boldly announced
that the Republican party was COM
nIitted to a policy of bounties. The
statement was denied by several of the
colleagues of the Hennepi1 member,
and one of them went so far as to say
/ the statement was lie.
The action taken by the majority
members yesterday would tend to
/ prove the correctness of the statement
/ made by Mr.. Dwinnell, although each
! and all of them stated that they were
! governed solely by the desire not to
repudiate a legal and binding debt
{ owed by the state.
/ The governor. however, has the sat
isfaction OF knowing that his action
| in the premises has resulted in a bill
| being introduced along the lines sug-
! gested in his veto message which pos
/ sibly might have been overlooked dur
| ing the session.
! Mr.. Henderson (Rep), of Fillmore,
within a few minutes after the house
/ had been assembled, moved that the
communication Of the governor veto
ing H. F. 1853 be taken from the table
Mr.. Guttersen (Rep.), of Blue Earth,
! seconded the motion and started off
/ with a speech to the effect that the
bill provided for the payment of just
debt, which the state owed
He was Interrupted by Mr.. taples,
| who. in the absence of Speaker Dare,
had been elected speaker pro tenn, call
/ Ing his attention to the fact that the
motion had not been acted upon by
| gone through with, Mr. Guttersen
again secured the eye of the speaker
and moved that H. F. 1853 be passed,
notwithstanding the veto by the gov
| ernor. All the bill provided he said,
| was to pay debt which the state
owed Jan. l, 1899.
MR.. DONOHUE'S POSITION.
Mr. Donohue Oem.), of Stearns, did
not favor the passage of the bill, in the
face of the message from the governor
The state, of course, was legally bound
! to pay the bounty that had accrued,
but he agreed with the governor that
the amount and the time should be
limited. The beet sugar industry had
prospered in states where no bounty
was paid better than in states where
such a royalty was paid. He cited
/ California as an instance, where in
! 1883 only 1,500 tons Of beet sugar had
! been manufactured, and in 1897 So $50
/ tons. No bounty was paid in that
( state, and there was one factory turn
! ing out 1900 tons per day.
Mr.. Feeny Oem.), of LIE Sueur, in
| terrupted to inquire what the question
was before the house. The chair ex-
planned, and then Mr.. Feeny made the
point that the gentleman was not talk
! ing to the question. The chair ruled
! that the point was not we'll taken, as
the widest latitude would be allowed
/ in the discussion.
/ Continuing, Mr.. Donohue said that,
/ at the rate the Minneapolis factory
was working, it would draw a royalty
! of $4,000 this year, and, before the
legislature would meet again, with
/ four other factories which were to be
opened, the cost to the state would be
| $500, 000
MI. Grondahl (Rep), of Goodhue,
took the ground that the governor
! would not have sent in the veto mes
sage had he been as conversant with
! the subject as the members of the
/ house were. There was no doubt but
that the message was sent in for the
jest puTpOSS M6iuD0TS OF the mouse,
/ however, had been in favor of the sug-
gestions made in the message, and had
! II not been received it would not have
/ been a great While before such a law
would have been introduced and passed
! There had been some talk among the
members about limiting the amount to
! be paid for sugar bounty and the dis
! trlbution of 1t among the farmers and
manufacturers. The state was now in
! denied 70 of
| $4,000, and there was no doubt as to
/ the justice of the bill The question
| was whether it was not better to pass
| bill paying the claim and then en-
| body in another bill the suggestions of
| the governor. If a bill Containing the
two provisions did not pass, the obli-
! cation would remain unpaid. and the
state would be repudiating its debts.
! He advised the passage of the bill over
| the veto and then the taking up Of the
! suggestions of the governor on their
merits and pass a law amending the
| one now on the statute books He
! would have to vote against the gov
| e1nor, but would be willing to vote for
DILL along the lines suggested in the
| message
Mr.. Roberts Rep), of Hennepin, in
| sisted that the state should paw its
! just and proper debts The governor
had only attempted to lecture the pres
| ent legislature for the shortcomings of
! the one four years ago and secure a
| lttie political capital. 1t was a cheap
| political trick to lecture the house un-
| der the official seal
STIVERS OUT OF LINE.
Mr.. Stivers Oem), of Crow Wing.
| favored the passage of the bill over the
veto. 1t was only an appropriation
that had accrued against the state. The
only issue was should the claim be paid
Or not The bill, according to the gov
ernor's own message read. II do not
| wish to be understood as questioning
the liability of the state for the paw
ment of the bounty already accrued
! TO this extent the state IS bound moral
! ly and legally
with this view, the bill should have
been approved. If the governor want
ed the laws changed, he could have no.
tlhed the house. The veto was the en-
| Coo1ment Of a suspicion that the Ieeis-
nature would not act rightly unless a
cub was held over It's head. He WouId
not support such a suspicion and would
not allow party or partisanship to CON
| trol his actions. The state had CON
tracted just debt in the belief that
IT was necessary to foster new in
| duStry and, whether this view WAS cor
rect Or not, the state had incurred the
| DEBT and the money had been honestly
! earned. The remarks of Mr.. Stivers
We're loudly applauded by the Repub-
! lican members
Mr.. Winston DENY, of Hennepin.
said 1t was wrong for the house to
override the veto. This statement
caused derisive laughter among The Re
publicans. Continuing, Mr.. winston
| said the member from Goodhue had
stated that it was t1,e inta,