Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1900-06-16
TRUTH ABOUT MU|[TI'
Origin and Enactment Of What Is
Known as the .Mulct" Law
in lows.
Ex.Repressntative Martin. Whose
Name 1s Connected With It,
Not Its Father.
Hon. ]. q. Funk Gives True History
Of the statuts-Tbe Con.
troversy.


troversy.
Special to Times Republican.
Iowa Falls, June 16.--In view Of the
fact that the candidacy of Hon. w. b.
Martin. of Adair county, for secretary
of state, has opened up the controversy
as to the authorship Of the mulct law.
your correspondent called upon Hon. j.
H. Funk, of this city, and Intercepted
him as to the matter in question. Mr..
Funk was chairman Of the committee
on suppression Of intemperance in the
lTwenty-f1fth general assembly. which
enacted the law, the authorship of
which has often been debated.
Being questioned as to Mr.. Martins
part in the framing of this famous bill.
Mr.. Funk said: NO one man is enti-
tied to be styled the author of the bill,
as it was the product of the labor of
several men both IN the legislature and
out of it. So far as MIR. Martin Is con-
cerned, he never saw the bill which, as
afterward amended, became what has
since been known as the Iowa mulct
law until after it was introduced into
the house.
When asked regarding the circum-
stances that surrounded the birth OF
this famous statute, Mr.. Funk replied
that the enactment and authorship.
briefly stated, was that Mr.. Given.
then of the Marshalltown Times-Re-
publican, SO far as know, was the first
to advocate the adoption of law of
this kind for Iowa. Mr.. Carney (since
senator), at the request of Mr.. Given.
drew up rough draft, embodying the
mulct idea, which was published in the
Times Republican. This Mr.. Given
brought to me and urged me to drafea
bill along the same lines. The legal
features OF the proposed bill were dis
cussed until Mr.. Given satisfied me that
prohibition was failure in the cities of
the state and that something must be
done by the friends of temperance or a
statewide local option law would take
the place of the then statute on the
liquor question"
The bill was then taken under adj
svisement by Mr.. Funk who. trained in
the law as he was and with years of
experience as a public prosecutor, saw
many difficulties before the law that
had not occurred to Mr.. Given. 1t was
finally decided that Funk should look
up the constitutional question and II, in
his judgment. bill could be drawn
that would be free from constitutional
objections. he would draw it and do
what he could to procure its endorse
ment by the committee OF which he was
chairman. Mr.. Funk then spent a week
| in looking up authorities in this and
neighboring states, especially those of
Ohio and Michigan which had constitu-
tional provisions similar to Iowa.
The result was that taking the Car
ney bill as a skeleton framework and
awaiting himself Of such portions of the
Michigan law and the Pond law" Of
Ohio as had succeeded in running the
gauntlet OF the courts of those states.
together with such additions as, in his
experience asa district attorney In Illi-
nois he had found necessary. he evolved
the original "mulct bill" as introduced
by him.
Speaking Of the actual drafting Of the
bill Mr.. Funk said: AS fast as I COM
pleted section it was taken by Hon.
David Brant. now of the Clinton Her
aid. to an adjoining room where five
copies We're struck OFF on a typewriter
and by Mr.. Brant sent to the various
newspapers OF the state. Most, il not
all. of the dailies Of the state and OF
Chicago gaveit extended editorial men
ton. BY some it was characterized as
a surrender to the whisky interests
IAN abandonment of prohibition etc.
BY others it was considered as a fa-
natical addition to an already burden
me4law.'
Continuing a recital Of the evolution
of the mulct bill. Mr.. Funk said: I'm
the meantime there were no less than
fifteen bills introduced in the two
houses The Carpenter bill went to its
death in the senate with only twelve
votes to its credit. Martin introduced
n counterpart of the Nebraska local OPP
ton law"
AT this juncture it became apparent
to Mr.. Funk that with the united oppo.
sition Of the democrats andltlocal option
republicans on the one hand and the
radical prohibitionists on the other it
would be impossible to pass this or any
other bill without making some conces-
sions With this end In view he APP
pointed subcommittee with Martin
as chairman which took the various
house bills and endeavored to evolve a
bill that would command votes enough
to secure its passage. The sub-cornmit-
tee at once discarded the local option
bills as being In conflict with our state
constitution. The Martin bill was found
to be open to the same objection and
to the additional one of indefiniteness.
compromise was effected by taking
the Funk bill in its entirety without the
omission of single section and incor-
porating the petition section OF the
Martin bill which referred only to
cities of 5000 or more Inhabitants as
section II of the proposed bill: the sub
sections from l to ~ OF this section
We're taken from the laws of Nebracka,
Ohio and Illinois. Section IS Of the bill
was drawn by Morrison. OF Grundy. but
provided for a majority petition instead
OF 60 per cent as at present. The
change in this section from majority
to 65 per cent was due to the demands
of Allen OF Van Buren, and Weaver OF
Louisa. Section "a Of the bill was the
Joint work OF Representatives Sawyer OF
Sioux City and Chassell OF LeMars.
These three additions were the only adj
ditions made to the original bill as In
troduced by Mr.. Funk with the excep-
tons Of some verbal changes.
Waterloo hoy to he Cadet,
Special to Tlmes-Republican.
Waterloo, Ia, June 16.--Arthnr Young
Of