The public weal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn. ;) 1906-1908, 1907-04-01
Prohibition and County Option Bills Killed.
The Two Big Their Record Bury Both n inc Same
~ COVE Ebehads "Square Deal splendid Kecord vi
Prohib Legislators.
superintendent o.

lister of deeds, superintendent OF
schools and surveyor shall be aDso-
lutely non-partisan. Nominees there
for shall pay the usual fees but shall
not declare party affiliation, and the
name of each candidate shall appear
on the primary ballots of all political
parties. and after his name shall be
no party designation. Heretofore, a
man desiring a county office could get
under the dominant party tent Tor
auditor, for instance, even though ne
was densely ignorant. This bill would
improve the clerical service OF the
county. But it has been referred back
to the author by the committee, which
probably means it's defeat. But this
is not certain.
Thus Endeth.
Mr.. Higgins on the 1st inst. intro
duced a bill for constitutional amend
ment, and it was referred, at his re-
quest, to the Elections committee. The
text of the amendment reads as FOL
lows: "The manufacture, sale or
TRANSPORTATION of alcoholic liquors
within the State Of Minnesota for
| beverage purposes shall be prohibited
forever after January 1, 1910. The
Legislature first convening after the
adoption hereof shall enact appropriate
legislation for the carrying out OF the
provisions of this section, subject to
amendment or alteration by subse-
quent legislatures"
| The committee promptly recon-
mended that the bill be indefinitely
postponed Messrs. Higgins, Timber
lake and Wells presented minority
report recommending the passage OF
the bill. Mr.. Lobeck urged total pro-
hibition as the only solution of the
saloon problem. Mr.. Higgins asked
that the people be allowed to settle
the issue. Messrs. Hicks, Lennon and
Tighe opposed the bill. The vote be-
ing taken, the bill was defeated by a
vote of 81 to 38. This is what most OF
the Christian citizens of Minnesota are
voting for and the license parties are
faithfully delivering the goods.
Was It a Square Deal?
The vote of eight to one in the
committee and 81 to % in the Senate
| against the County Option bill is hav
ing an opposite effect upon the pubic
and upon the legislature. Editoria
opinion is vigorously expressed by
many of the independent papers tt
. the effect that an 8 to 1 committee or
: a question concerning which there wa:
| as much general interest as on Count!
. Option, was no more accident; tha
our Christian Lieutenant Governor
/ who had definitely promised to ap
, point a Temperance committee tina
would give the County Option bill fai
, treatment indulged himself in one O
those political fairy tales that thu
people have seemingly enjoyed for 81
) many years; that the Committee it
: self was under the direct control o
r the machine" as was the power tha
r constituted it and that the action o
! the committee was predetermined be
5 fore the Legislature convened.
: The effect on the legislature, on tn
5 other hand, is to embOlden them il
t their hostility to all legislation agains
: the liquor traffic. The memory of tn
/ vigor of the campaign just passed ha
r not entirely escaped them, so that
9 large number of members. have busie
themselves in presenting some bill
aimed at the trade" This will be
beautiful story for them to tell to tn
Y preachers and "good people, and vii
j. be an effective offset against ba
: record on roll-calls.
5 A Dangerous Bill Killed.
O Early in the session, one of thos
r nice members who in some way seer
Il to be always at command for the dirt
y y work of the liquor traffic introduce
: a bill providing that malt up to 2 pc
Continued on page 8.