The Sauk Centre herald. (Sauk Centre, Stearns County, Minn.) 1886-current, 1905-04-13

and ESPECIALLY in it's interior arrange
ments and adornments. The state of
Minnesota has indeed right to be
proud of this building. And why
shouldn't the state of Minnesota,
with it's area of $4,000 square miles
and its two million people, why
shouldn't it have large aud hand
some capitol. This crest state with
its two million people is to-day in its
infancy. You are here legislating for
that state and your work, because Of
the fact that the state is new, is more
important than in the older eastern
states. The state is new and new
measures are constantly arising.
From the newspapers l know you
have acquitted yourself we'll.
"YOu have one important measure
here before you, which 1 understand
is likely to pass, involving the coditica-
ton of all your statutes. This is a
very important bill. Now, gentlemen,
there in congress we move very
slowly. We feel down there often
times if we can pass one good general
measure of legislation in a session OF
congress we are doing we'll. Now,
gentlemen, you have great many
other important measures, but it
during the session of the Legislature
you can adopt your code, and get it
so amended and pass it so it will be
satisfactory, if you can adopt that
measure it will be great monument
to your work.
During the past winter perhaps
the most important legislation OF a
general nature was the repeal of the
forest scrip law. In respect to other
matters the legislation OF congress
was rather tentative character.
Several important measures were
pending in congress but the two
houses could not get together. There
was the bill for the admission of two
territories as two states. That failed
to pass because the two houses could
not get together, and then what was
known as the rate bill failed to pass,
because it came over to the senate
rather late, and the committee on
interstate commerce felt that they
needed more time to investigate and
study the subject. In other respects
you have seen in the papers that there
has been a great deal OF friction
between the president and the senate.
To large extent this is not true.
Then there were the arbitration
treaties, some nine or ten in number.
The Southern states senators were
utterly opposed to the treaties in that
form. They wanted the word agree
ment substituted for treaty. The
reason why these Southern states were
opposed to it was just recently some
of the repudiated state bonds of North
Carolina, held by private parties, were
turned in to the state of South Dakota
for the purpose of giving that state a
right to sue the state of North
Carolina, because under our statutes
no state can be sued except by another
state. The representatives of the
southern states were afraid that many
of these repudiated bonds would be
made the subject of arbitration, and
these states be made to pay these
bonds. Hence the representatives
were utterly opposed to the arbitration
treaties in that form and the republi.
cans, lacking two-thirds vote, were
obliged to amend the treaties to change
the word agreement to treaty or they
would not have passed, so that in
every instance the arbitration would
have to be submitted to the senate. ]