The Sauk Centre herald. (Sauk Centre, Stearns County, Minn.) 1886-current, 1905-03-30
NEWS AND GOSSIP FROM THE
STATE CAPITOL.
St. Paul, March 81. 1905.

pass the revised code? Opinions
differ, of course. l have heard the
question answered most positively
both in the affirmative and negative
So far as am concerned would not
dare venture an Opinion-the whole
proposition strikes me as being cup
in the air." most decidedly so, at that.
Leaving aside technicalities and ap-
pearances l am of the opinion that the
house did not pass the code, it simply
unloaded the unwelcome burden on to
the senate. Surely, outside of the
Judiciary committee, very few of the
representatives were in position to vote
intelligently on the proposition. The
committee assured the house that it
had made the best of bad bargain
and the house simply accepted the
committees say-so and voted "aye''
on faith.
Such being the case, it is matfifestly
Unfair for the house to consider itself
relieved of the responsibility of the
possible ultimate failure of the code to
pass at this session. 1 made this
assertion advisedly, from the stand
point of disinterested party, so far as
that is possible under the circum-
stances. l have no ak to grind with
the house, neither am an apologist
for the senate. The upper house has
made fully as thorough and searching
efforts respecting the new code as did
the lower house, and it must be con-
coded that the senators are on the
average, men of greater ability and
broader experience than the repre-
sentatives. Another thing: only one
house committee really considered the
code, while in the senate nearly every
standing committee has worked
diligently on those chapters, the
subject matter of which properly came
under their consideration. Thus it is
seen that the consideration of the new
code up to date is a question as
between the entire senate on the one
hand and the house judiciary COM
mittee on the other. AS to which is
the safest criterion by which to Judge
shall leave to the readers of the
Herald.
What many look upon as ''straw"
showing the way the wind blows in
the senate as to the code, is contained
in bill introduced couple days ago
by Senator Morgan of Albert Lea.
Though it is explained that the
purpose of this bill is merely to act as
a safeguard in case no action is taken
on the code, the explanation is by
many taken with the proverbial grain
of salt. The bill provides that the
revision of the statutes be delegated to
a committee consisting of three
senators and four representatives who
shall serve without pay and report to
the governor by January 1, 1906. The
measure further provides that. the
members of the proposed committee
be allowed not to exceed 5000 each for
actual expenses and that $3.50 be
appropriated to hire the necessary help
to properly carry out the work.
Should the code fail of passage the
Morgan bill will, of course, be a
safeguard, in so far that the $85, 900
already expended on the revision will
not be dead loss to the state, as the
new committee will have the proposed
revision as we'll as the almost 1000
amendments proposed at this session
as basis on which to work. AS
previously intimated, however, many
are inclined to accept the introduction
of the Morgan bill as prophetic of the
failure of the code at this session.
That the two bodies will get into a
free-for-all wrangle as regards the new
code is a foregone conclusion. Many
senators are anything but satisfied
with a goodly proportion of the
amendments adopted by the house.
Neither is there a dearth of house
members who insist that they will not
recede from said amendments. There
you are-and between them hangs the
fate of the code.
The present house has often been
referred to as radical" the senate as
conservative" l don't see that any.
thing can be gained by discussing the
subject, but it appears to me that
there is more truth than poetry in the
distinction made, and vet it is probably
only comparatively true. Unques.
tionably there are some house
members fully as conservative as the
most conservative senators, and ]
don't know that would care to deny
the fact that there are few senators
who are almost as radically inclined
as are their admittedly radical com.
patriots in the coordinate branch
The preponderance of radicalism is in
the house, however. How else car
Of h. L.