Morris tribune., 1911-01-27

especially significant and interesting.
S. A. Stockwell of Minneapolis is
former state Senator. When in
the senate Chamber few days ago
he was accosted by Mr.. Blank of a
we'll known printing firm who inquir-
ed why he was there.
81 am interested in direct legisla-
! tion.' answered Stockwell.
"By that you mean the initiative
and referendum ?'
eyes, and the recall" said Stock
we'll.
"They have the initiative and re-
| ferendum in South Dakota, and the
ballot is several feet long," ventured
Mr.. Blank.
Eyes. but in Oregon the ballot is
more like the page of newspaper, -
said StockWell.
Il know" returned Mr.. Blank,
"we are printing some samples Of
both Of them.''
"Who is having them printed?''
asked Stockwell.
"Zollman, was the answer.
The brewers are busy. Zollman is
attorney for the Minnesota Liquor
Dealers Association. That organiza-
tion is obviously leading the fight
against direct legislation. Backed
by every other kind Of special inter
est, the brewers are arming their leg
islative agent with arguments with
which to oppose the progressives il
their battles for the initiative, re-
ferendum and recall. With these
brewery printed documents as evi-
dence. the professional politicians
will hold up to Legislators "the
spectre Of expense and the plea of
impracticability. "
It is not at all strange that ZolIman
is so vitality interested in the defeat
of direct legislation. That issue
means more than all other reforms
combined. 1t is a dozen times more
important, economically and morally,
than county option, because it means
county option and a vast deal Of de-
mocra " besides. With the coming
of an honest and practical initiative
and referendum law. brewery domina-
tion Of the politics of the state will
cease, That is why Zollman and the
organized brewery influence are print
ing arguments for the use of their al
lies IN the legislature.
Citizens of the state should not be
misled by the number of direct legis-
lation bills that have been introduced
in the House. More than a half
dozen are in the hands of committees.
But that does not mean rs much for
the idea as though there were only
one honest bill in the hands of a
real progressive. The number of
bills on the subject is not SO much an
evidence Of popularity, as it is of the
system at work. With this condition
it is easier for the desperate enemies
of the idea to bring about controversy
and discord among the various authors
Of these bills. To dissipate the pro-
gressive strength is always the initial
maneuVre of the ANAL gamated special
interests led by the brewers.
Then, too, with enemies or only
half hearted supporters Of the prin-
ciple in control of the legislative ma
chinery, the poorest of the numerous
bills would be the most likely to pass.
Since it looks to me at this time as
though the direct legislation bill in
troduced by L. c. Spooner Of Morris
would be the one given the right of
way, want to call attention to one
bad feature of his measure, which
would make it difficult of passage,
and possibly ineffective if it should
become law. The Spooner bill pro-
vides for the initiative, referendum
and recall, all in single constitu-
tional amendment. 1t is generally
agreed that it would require an
amendment to one section of the
State constitution to give the people
the power to use the initiative and
referendum in legislation, ana an
other amendment of another section
for the recall. No one bill should
change two different sections of the
constitution.
But. assuming that this is not a
vital defect in the Spooner bill. here
is the deplorable phase of it. There
are members of the Legislature who
believe in the initiative and referen-
dunn, yet do not believe in the recall.
Others believe in the recall. but not
in the initiative and referendum. By
compelling members to vote on every
thing in the one bill, Spooner would
invite and unite the opposition of all