The Saint Paul globe., 1905-01-25
t THE WORK OF THE STATE LEGISL ATU7E


Is Taken
ne senate judiciary committee will
subdlvide the statute revision code
among its various subcommittee, and
VIII III consider the code in committee.
The subcommittees of the session of
1919 viii be reappeinted by Chairman
-Somerville of the committee. Follow
ing an executive session of the senate
JUDICIARY committee yesterday this de-
clSlon, was announced.
& A supplemental report from the COM
MISSION, explaining new matter in the
code, is promised in few days.
For three hours the statute revision
commission was under fire yesterday
afternoon The senate judiciary COM
m1ttee, augmented by members of the
mouse Judiciary committee and several
railroad attorneys, met three members
OF the code commission in the senate
chamber and discussed the proposed
code with them. Question followed
question, and while plausible explana-
uons Of sins of omission and commits
Sion We're made In some instances, the
most common explanation of the MEM
.oers OF the commission was that the
language used in changing the law did
not express the intent of the commits
Sion.a9
Northern Pacific, and T. j. Knox, the
member of the commission who wrote
the. chapter relating to railroad rates.
debated the effect of the codes change
OF phraseology, which railroad men and
lawyers generally declare will, if en-
acted into law, give Minnesota dis
tance tariff law Mr. Knox contended
that the old law contemplates the same
tnlhs, out by common consent it has
never been enforced in this state.
How to Tackle Report
Near the close of the session of the
committee the senators discussed the
proper procedure for the senate to take
In reference to the consideration of the
new code Senator E. R. Thompson
favored subdivision of the code and
assigning it to the judiciary subcom-
mlttees. He urged this practice, and
an invitation to every interest affected
to submit objections to it's various parts
IN writing. He declared for the early
enactment of the code and its subse-
queilt amendment
Senator George P. Wilson, In dis
tons rewritten, said:
My understanding is that the COM
mission was to keep the law intact and
to preserve it's phraseology wherever
possible, for the supreme court has
passed on the phraseology of our laws
again and again. Substitute the COM
missions language for the language Of
the different acts and there is the dam
ger OF decision adverse to the laws.
No one will suggest in seriousness
that we take up this body of law, after
corrections have been made, and de-
clare it the law of the state
Senator Wilson called attention to the
radical changes in the drainage laws,
which had successfully run the gaunt-
let of the supreme court, and wanted to
know if the senate proposed to depart
from the law and accept an entirely
different theory and enact that into
law.
"It would be an idle and an extremely
dangerous thing to do to accept the pro-
visions of the code and enact them
into law when the propositions of the
code are different from the laws of the
state. Why he asked, did not the
commission present US a code of the
drainage laws of the state instead OF
a new code of drainage law
Fish Scores Senators
Judge Daniel Fish, of the commits
sion, was plainly nettled by Senator
Wilson's arraignment of the commits
sion.
If you deal with a code on Mr. Will
sens plan you will not have a code in
hundred years" he said. I'VE have
been acting as committee of the leg
iC1at1IrQ tn III
revise. Unless you are here to do this
you had better go home. You cannot
get 5000, to 5000 pages in 1000 pages
without revising the subject matter.
Have we been reckless or incompe-
tent9 Have we been radical or made
changes with intent? If we have done
our work with fairly honest intent, you
three men can't agree in three years,
! i2901nen can't agree in 200 years
Rieke Is Alarmed
Senator A. v. Rieke favored imme-
{ dfates adoption and subsequent amend
ment of the code
I don't want to go home until we
: do something,D - he said. Il am willing
to work gratis if we cannot get
through in ninety days. Many of you
will not be members of the next sem
ate unless you adopt this code. The
same tactics of delay are being used
that defeated the tax code"
The desirability or the undesira-
bility of new matter injected into this
code is the question to be considered" !"
said Senator R. B. Brewer. 1T has
developed that much new matter, not
!. so marked, has erept into the code.
This, with admitted errors. warn us
that hasty passage is a. course not to
be pursued. We must do what we can
to detect new legislation, and if un-
warranted, discard it, and then pass
the code. / disagree with the plan of
an early passage and later amendment.
l believe that we can pass complete
and satisfactory code by proceeding
slowly"
Senator F. H. Peterson hoped that
the senate would adopt the course
pursued by the house in subdividing
the code into subcommittee. He said
1t was unfair to the financial interests
of the state to pass code unfriendly
to these interests, but he believed with
proper safeguards a new code could be
passed at the present session.
Old subcommittee Named
| xk<.x.F ~ L.