The Princeton union. [volume] (Princeton, Minn.) 1876-1976, 1911-02-23
STATE LEGISLATURE
Continued From Page 1.

much better presented. Nothing said
in the house in opposition to county
option approached, either in logic or
vlgor, the argument made by Senator
Collier OF Scott county. He made the
very best that could be made out of a
case not without merit. ......,.
The debate was opened by Senator
Victor l.. johnson, the author of the
county option bill. He was followed
later on the same side by Senator
Lende OF Marshall. I couple them to.
gether because, taken together, thew
covered with great fullness all sides
OF the question. If one appealed
more to reason, the other appealed
more to the heart. Senator johnson
made clean cut argument; Senator
Lende made an impassioned address
and it is hard to say which was the
more effective. I quote a brief ex.
tract from each which will Indicate
the manner of each in presenting his
case.
81. !.
"No man has an inherent right to
engage in this business, as he would
have the right to conduct the grocery,
clothing, grain, banking or other
legitimate business" said Senator
johnson. We come before you, ask.
ing you to grant to the public an ex-
tension of the right of suffrage as to
this traffic-to ask you to restore to
US the birthright of every American
Citizen permitted by our constitution
and laid down by the highest court in
our land. We claim that at least
three-fourths of our people are today
denied one of their inalienable rights
the right to conduct their own local
government to the best interests of
their own local communities. The
right to vote on the question as to
whether or not the sale of LIQUOR
shall be permitted is now confined to
rural townships, the smaller villages,
and a few of the fourth class cities. -
$50.
Note the difference between his
method and that of Senator Lende:
There are thousands and thousands
of little hands extended toward u.s."
he said, land the hands of thousands
and thousands of women here and
throughout the country, praying that
the senate of Minnesota pass this bill.
You may not pass it now-you may
put it of-but you cannot put it
away. ask that, although it cannot
pass this afternoon, it be given a
good sustaining VOTE"
$50.
It has appeared subsequent to the
debate that Senator Dwinnell of Hen-
nepin county, like Mr.. Hopkins in the
house, didn't quite know where he
was at. He has said subsequently,
that he made an argument in favor
of local option. Possibly he did.
He voted in favor of county option.
In such a case it is small wonder that
his colleagues are still looking for
light.
Little trouble was experienced in Sc
curing favorable vote in the house
on the reapportionment bill. Prac-
tically the only argument against Mr..
Congdon's bill was directed against
what no bill based on population, as
the constitution requires, could avoid,
namely the larger representation
given the twin cities and Duluth. In
consistencies in the bill we're pointed
out here and there, but it had to be
admitted even by those most opposed
to reapportionment, that the bill was
as fair one as could we'll be framed.
1t was argued, no doubt with truth,
by representatives of the cities that,
on the basis of population, they were
not as generously dealt with as the
legislative districts of southern Min
nesota. The cities, however, were
not inclined to insist on their pound
of flesh. They we're satisfied to make
some sacrifice to the southern part of
the state if substantial justice could
be done all round. The vote in favor
of the bill was IS to 81 against.
The most interesting feature of the
debate was the ingenious and
plausible argument made by Repre-
sentative Harding of Faribault
county. He figured up. the losses OF
representatives. and senators to
southern Minnesota. Then, excluding
the counties of Hennepin, Ramsey
and St. Louis, he showed that the
only gain to that vast agricultural
region in northern Minnesota about
.rl