Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1908-05-08

ent leader in the state.
After this bill had passed, it is
evident from the record that the en-
tire body of the senate changed it's
view, for it passed motion to re-
consider, and postponed action until
the following day. The record does
not. show that the bill was ever CALI
ed up again. So that the entire SEN
ate appears to have agreed with the
stand l took when I voted against
the bill.
If this was such measure that it
was legislative crime to vote
against it, may I inquire why Mr..
Regan moved to reconsider its pas
sage, when failure to do so would
have left the bill enacted?
Again l have proven your compiler
to be pettifoger Of the clumsiest
sort:
Maximum Fare Bill.
Let me prove Your compiler again
a falsifier: You quote House Bill
10 as follows:
A bill for an act providing for
maximum rate Of fare to be
charged and collected by railroad
corporations and common carri-
ers for the transporting of pas
sengers and baggage and provid-
ing a penalty for the violation
thereof.
And you charge me with the crime
of having been absent and not vot-
ing. Your compiler deliberately fall
sites, so far as his intent is concern
ed, for he certainly knew the history
Of the maximum fare BILL
If you will see page 1872 of the SEN
ate Journal for 1907 you will see that
voted for the passage of House Bill
| IS, which then provided for a
straight fare of two cents a mile.
What happened?
The bill went back to the house,
which was Democratic and Insurg-
ent body.
The house refused to accept the
i amendment Of the senate, to cut out
the anti=pass provision of the bill, as
the senate had already passed a
strict anti-pass bill-Senate Bill %.
A conference committee was ap-
pointed, from the house and senate,
which agreed to an entire change
in the subject matter of the bill
something entirely unheard of in leg
islative procedure of this state-and
raised the maximum rate of fare to
two and half cents and inserted a
| $40 mileage book provision which
has. just been declared unconstitu-
tional by the supreme court.
1t was the vote on this bastard bill
at which was absent. For the or
iginal two-cent fare I voted.
| The committee that thus amended
this bill and agreed to the amend
ment on the part Of the house was
appointed by Treadwell Twichell
speaker Of the house.
| The committee on the part of the
house that failed to report upon the
anti-pass bill-senate Bill 23-was
appointed by the same speaker.
I voted for Senate Bill % the
anti.pass bill.-See Senate Journal
of 1907, page 4O5-4O6.
think my record on these two i'm
portant measures will compare fav-
orably with that of any member OF
either body who may be named. But
we are not through yet with the
analysis Of this remarkable docu-
ment that has been put forth as an
argument of sensible people tbs.
sue Of fraud, deceit and untruth.
| lam charged with having been alb
sent and not voting upon Senate Bill
$40, whose title you gave as follows:
A joint resolution creating
board to obtain information re-
| garding public service corpora
tons, their values and manage
| ment.
| From this absence you infer that
was opposed to this bill and wanted
to dodge" vote. What are the
facts?
| This resolution was referred to the
senate judiciary committee of which
l had the honor to be chairman. The
bill was reported fayorably, by my
committee, and by the committee OF
the whole. Does not this dispose eff
fectually of the attempted inference
| that | sought to avoid vote for this
bill-particularly where the bill
passed the senate by unanimous
| vote? Let me pursue the analysis a
little further.
The Discrimination Bill.
/ am charged with voting against
House Bill 1853 Of 1903, whose title
is given as follows:
Z. A bill for an act prohibiting
i discrimination in the matter of
compensation of common car
Il ,.;a q