Little Falls herald. [volume] (Little Falls, Morrison County, Minn.) 1889-1950, 1899-07-07
Answers the Criticism Of His
Veto ofsthe Railroad and
4 s&.:.....-s5 Warehouse. Bill. ==s.s
Prom pity Demands Retraction
Of Charges Made by the
w.. = Luvern 3 Herald. %s
THE I u i. CHARGES CHA c RE { ! !
Vetoed Measure Would Have
Made Redress Of Griev-
ances impossible. "*
Full Text. Of Governor: Lind's
Statement in Regard to :.
the Railroad Case.

ST. PAUL, June 20.-The Luverne Her.
aid, of which State Senator 81. j. Mile,
is the editor and proprietor, has led the
Republican criticism against Governor
Lind for his veto of the Miller bill, being
Senate File No. "a, to make findings Of
fact in proceedings before the Railroad
and Warehouse Commission official court
records in such cases. In recent is
sue Senator Miller charged unworthy
motives on the part of the governor and
that he had been governed in his &C.
ton by certain railway influence.
Thereupon Governor Lind addressed tc
Senator Miller an explicit denial and
demand for retraction of his charges,
coupled with full statement regard.
ing the bill and reasons for the veto.
Senator Miller, in The Herald of June
%, retracted the charges, with the state.
ment that he would publish Governor
Lind's letter in full in the following
issue. The full text of the governors
communication is as follows:
ST. PAUL, Mimi, June 20, 1899.
Hon. H. J. Miller, Luverne, MINI.
DEAR SIR confess I was not little
surprised when copy of your paper of
June 9th was placed before me and |
saw the article headed Limbs Betrayal
of Trust" the first paragraph of which
reads as follows: ''The Herald has
made the charge in previous issues that
Senate File No. "a, relating to proceed.
ings for the enforcement of the orders
of the Railroad and Warehouse Com.
mission. was killed by Governor Lind
at the instance or by the demand of the
Great Northern Railway company"
had been informed previous to this that
you had made charges Of some such
character in earlier issues of your
paper, but paid no attention to them
as hoped that you would be down
to the City and that might have an
opportunity to place the facts before
you in their proper light, my time
hardly permitting communication by
correspondence in matter so involved
as the consideration of our statutes re-
lating to the Railroad and Warehouse
Commission, but this last charge is such
brazen falsehood and of such charac-
ter that, coming from the source it
does, I feel that it demands not only an
explicit denial, but an explanation of
the law as it now stands and the effect
of the proposed amendment, so that you
and any citizen who desires to under
sCand the matter may see and appreci-
ate the dangerous character of Senate
File No. "a, which refused to sign.
In Minneapolis and St. Louis Railway
Company Va. Railroad and Warehouse
Commission, A MIMI, $50, which was
one Of the earlier cases under the pres
ent railroad law before our Supreme
Court. Judge Mitchell uses; this: lam
guage: ''The act tLews 1857, Chapter
10y regulating common carriers aud
creating the Railroad and Warehouse
Commission is a piece of legislative
patchwork composed Of provisions bor-
rowed from different and dissifnilar
sources without uniformity Of plan and
not always consistent with each other.
A construction Of the act is therefore q
difficult task Although the act has
been amended several times since
that language was used with reference
to it, it is still applicable to many
Of the provisions OF the law 40 it
now staads, as any one who has read 1t
with care must concede; but, nsverthe-
less, it has now been before the Court
20 often and many of its sections 20
thoroughly construed, that the most
striking Inconsistencies have been fec-
onciled and the legislation. o. whole,
made harmonious by Judicial iaterpre-
tation. In my message to the legisla-
ture recommended only one change
and in the following language; Tho
report Of the State Railroad and Ware
house Commission VIII Be- laid before
you. :, No new legislation ID needed on
that, subject, except that tho record
made before the Commission on,s hear
ing should DO made to. constitute the
record On appsal. The present practice
oftrytng 1 case dc 1ovo il. the District
Court Is nseless and sxtpenaive ana by