Morris tribune., 1911-01-13

4
anything without a fight? Or is it
safer to reverse the old rule of the
ages and "look a gift horse in the
mouth ?" The progressives in the
legislature are wondering. Some of
the shrewd ones have about decided
that concession" and counterfeit
are sisterly SYNONYMS. 1t happened
like this:
The progressives demanded that the
rules be reformed in at least two
vital respects. Thev knew that most
of the evils of legislation could be
traced ~ to the smothering and dis
torting of bills in standing committees
and (2) to the lack of publicity in
connection with the acts of such COM
mittees. To change the first Can
nonistic condition W. A. Campbell
drafted and presented to the Com
mittee on Rules Messrs, Mackenzie.
Congdon, Stone. Fowler and sWestcott
AN amendment which required
that practically all bills be reported
back to the House from their COM
mittees within fifteen days. w. I.
Nolan, also of MINNEAPOLIS, offered
the other amendment requiring all
committees to keep a public record of
their meetings.
The Committee on Rules econ
ceded' the first demand and incor-
porated this concession in their
report. Instead of single joker it
seems to have twin stings in its pro-
visions. At least it admits of Gin
trepre ton" by those in authority );
and that is the issue in all such con-
troversies. The new rule reads:
"Every bill. other than appro-
priations, claims or reapportiton-
ment, referred to standing COM
mittee, shall be reported therefrom
within twenty days after it's receipt
by the committee Any such bill not
so reported within such period. unless
s;.ch period is extended by vote of
the house, shall, five days after any
member gives notice in the house that
he REQUIRES such bill to be reported to
the house, be delivered to the speak
er, with or without a report of the
committee. and lie on the table of
the house,
The amendment is all right so
far as the first sentence goes. 1t
should end there. Then there would
be no mistaking its meaning or ap-
plication.
But why was there provision for
its violation? Does it mean that if
a member does not demand the return
of bill from its cor mittee that the
bill shall remain there. as it might
have done under the old order of
things? Why does not the rule say
simply and squarely that standing
committees shall report all bills back
within stated time. unless an ex-
tention has been granted by the
house?
The feature of this new rule that
looks the most deceptive and danger
Gus to me is in the last .line,. which
plainly provides that bills 50 report
ed shall "lie on the table of the
house, The regular course for
bill is for it to 60 from its committee
to general orders. Here again the
issue of Interpretation comes in. The
presiding officer might rule that it re-
quired more than majority vote to
take a vital bill from the table and
advance it. There are other ways
in which important bills might be
m anipulated out of their rightful
place under this rule.
The other reform was not econ
ceded.'' The progressiyes had to
fight for it, and they were defeated
decisively 81 to 46. When the re-
port of the Committee on Rules was
being considered w. l. Nolan offered
an amendment which provided for
complete publicity in committee
rooms. 1t was killed by the follow
ing vote:
FOR PUBLICITY.-A. V. Ander-
son, J. J. Anderson, Burnquist,
Campbell, Conley, Crane. Davies,
Edwards, Farley. Fisher. Frankson.
Harding, Hauge. Hillman, Hoffman,
Holmberg. Holten. C. E. Johnson. J.
N. johnson, J. T. Johnson, Just.
Klemer. Kunze, l. J. Lee, J. F. Lee,
Lindberg, Lundeen, McMartin,
Morton. Nolan, O'Neill, Orr, Palmer,
A. J. Peterson, J. E. Peterson. Put
nam, Robinson. Rustad, Sampson.
Skartum. W. T. Stone, Sulerud, Vox-
land, E. Warner, Whiting, 46.
AGAINST PUBLICITY. -Aker,
Andrew, Anderson, Boothroyd, Bor-
gen. Bouck. G. W. Brown. Christie,