Omaha daily bee., 1910-03-06
Tho Innlar SOL.


HARRINGTON, Neb., Feb, $50 the
Editor Of The Bee: It Is my purpose to
write a true n unvarnished history Of
the now famous Senate File 2S3, popularity
known as the daylight saloon law. The
writer was secretary Of the judiciary com
mittee OF the house Of representatives at
the last session. Representative Niels
Johnson Of Burt was the original author Of
the measure. which was revised slightly
by Senator King Of Polk. Then It was
introduced In each body by these gentle
men, respectively. Representative John
sons bill, known as house roll 119, was
Indefinitely postponed on the forty-fourth
day Of the session by a vote Of 46 to ~.
Senator Kings bill was senate file 1871, In
form an amendment to chapter @ known
as the Slocumb law, and much resembled
the bill which finally passed. Senate File 13i
was indefinitely postponed on the nine
teenth day OF the session by a vote Of 81
to 10. II would be profitless to enter into
the reasons, political and personal, which
wrought the decisive defeat Of this
measure. where pronounced prohibltlonlsts
were found voting with the champions Of
wide-open. When house roll 119 was indie
finitely postponed. Representative Johnson
was gloomy, but he remembers that the
present writer told him to brace UP for his
measure would be the law Of the state in
three calendar months after the adjourn
ment OF the session; and l pointed out to
him the course which was finally pursued.
A few days after this Arthur f. Mullen Of
O'Neil, proposed the same modus operandi,
In a democratic caucus, at which l was not
present. The judiciary committee was
Kept under strenuous strain; their business
exceeded that Of all the others combined.
The writer, as their clerk, had an assert
ment Of bills, which 1 called my God-and-
morality file. One day Victor Wilson Of
Polk, chairman Of the committee, said to
me: Bryant, can't you find a senate file
to which you can attack the daylight
provision as an amendment" ] picked out
No. $50 from the God-and-morallty file
aforesaid. 1t had been introduced by sena-
tor Wlltse Of my home district and was
an innocent amendment to section IA of the
so-called slocumb law, making that section
apply to primary elections, changing the
word: "Splrituous, malt and vlnous
liquors." to 'Spirituous, malt or vinous
liquors." and providing for FORGETTING Of
license on conviction. Thirty senators had
voted for the bill, only two against It, and
one was absent. 1 attached Johnson's
daylight measure to this bill as an amend.
ment. The Omaha members Of the COM
mittee were absent when this bill was
recommended by the judiciary committee
to the house with the amendment. But the
meetings we're held at regular hours, and
every one had an opportunity to be present,
There were ten members OF this commit
tee, seven voted for the bill on its final
passage, and three voted against it. 1t is
true that the Omaha members had no
knowledge that the committee had acted
upon this measure, and l did not inform
them. 1 was in the habit Of calling in the
members frequently, to get a quorum, but
did not consider 1t any part of my duty to
inform them Of happened in their
absence. 1t would serve no useful purpose
to call up what happened in the house on
Its final passage Of senate file 2SS, except
to state that on the passage fifty members
voted for the bill and thirty-eight against
1t, This was one less than the constitu-
tional majority. I know this, for l was in
the gallery, and heard the disputed NOM
Der vote. Yet the names of these voting
pro ct con were read over three times, and
the TENDERS had three opportunities to
correct all mistakes. Furthermore, at least
three absentees were friendly to the meas
ure and could have been brought In on
call of the house. The senate concurred by
a vote Of IS to IA. There was no general
disposition to force this measure abruptly
on Omaha. Every reasonable man
recognized the hardship. The friends of
the measure proposed excepting cities OF
the metropolitan class, but a majority of
the Douglas delegation spurned the COM
promise. AS everyone knows, the supreme
court has upheld the constitutionality of
the law. 1t is unnecessary to say that I
believe in the law, but l do not propose to
discuss its merits here.
WILBUR F. BRYANT.