Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1908-05-08
Legislative Record OF Hon. c. B. Little
Grand Forks Herald Having Recently Published Page Misleading Unfair
the Plain UNansRd truth Which Thoroughly hdcS the Record
most Legislators and Most
the Plain Unyarnished Il

duOtneF Dill covering similar subject
matter, and was not reported for the
reason that Senate Bill Y was pass
ed and covered the subject more
thoroughly and more effectively.
This being the case, there was no
reason for further action on Senate
Bill al.
This proves amply that your COM
piler, either ignorantly or deliberate
ly, seeks to convey false impress
sion from publishing the bare record
on an antitrust bill that died in
committee because better bill had
passed, for which L voted and which
was reported by my committee.
The Record ON First Measures.
Let us complete the record on this
antitrust matter.
In the session of 1897, Senate Jour
nal of 1897, at page COZ, I am re-
corded as voting for one of the earl
lest antitrust bills that was intro
duced, SO that my record on this
matter is clear from the first tnti-
trust legislation in the state down to
the present time.
Let us go little further into the
matter.
You charge that my absence with
out excuse from some role calls indi-
Gates that I "dodged" matters of
this same nature.
/ call your attention to the fact
that, on the vote of the Palmer anti
trust bill, session of 1907, page 71S,
there was absent without excuse,
Messrs. Kelly, democrat; Macarthur,
democrat, and Koffel, insurgent.
If your reasoning is good and your
deductions fair, then these gentlemen
are to be classed as lodging"
] If we are judging men from the
simple record, then all must be judg-
ed by the same standard.
Let us analyze your charge with
regard to Senate Bill 10, of the ses-
sion Of 1907, whose title you gave as
| follows:
A bill for an act to regulate
transfer facilities at points where
different lines Of railways cross
or intersect and providing PEN
atty for the violation Of the
same.
4 You say that this bill was referred
to the senate judiciary committee
and was never seen again. From that
you seek the conclusion that I aided
in supressing this legislation.
/ Now what are the facts?
This bill was Senator McArthur's
Senator Macarthur also introduced
Senate Bill 273, covering the same
subject.
Senate bill 273 was reported by
the Judiciary committee of which ]
was chairman, at page 439 Of the
Senate Journal. It was recommend
ed to pass. It passed, at page 47s
OF the Senate Journal of 1907. ]
voted for it.
This bill provides arbitrarily for
the construction of US by railroad
companies where their lines cross
It provides that states attorneys may
enforce its provisions. It Is a bill
that railroads would naturally, and
i did, oppose.
Now, what do we find in the roll
/ call on this bill?
We find that Senator Macarthur.
who had introduced it, was absent
and not voting when it was passed.
think this reduces your deduc-
tion that absence from roll call evil
dences a desire to dodge to an alb
surdity. It also disposses effectual-
ly of your charge with reference to
Senate Bill 10, which was not report.
ed because another and more effec-
tive bill on the same subject was
!, reported and passed.
Station ouse Bill.
- Lei US COuIIAu0 OuT dndly SlS.
You refer to House Bill 26, of the
session of 1888, a bill providing foI
the establishment of station houses
by railroad companies.
You site the fact that was absent
| from roll call on that bill as an evil
dence that was lodging vote up
on 1t.
Let me call your attention to the
roll call on that bill, found at page
$50 of the Senate Journal Of 1893.
What other senator's were absent
without leave?
John Burke, present governor Of
the state. and then state senator
John A. Sorley, present prominent
insurgent and reformer, then a state
senator.
Is judgment to be rendered to all
men from Independent facts taken
from the record and set apart from
surrounding facts and circumstan-
ces?
| II SO. having sought to use this
/ roll call tn NV disadvantages what