New Ulm review. (New Ulm, Brown County, Minn.) 1892-1961, 1911-03-22
S7IRS up SOME
BAD FEELING.
Dstsat Of Rsappoltlonlasat ID
the State Senate
GOVERNORS WISHES IGNORED
Lower Branch Of Legislature Also Il
Bad Humor over the Turning
Down Of the conedon Bill.

a. Il
Especial Correspondence.
st. Paul, March 2O.-Reapportion
ment was defeated in the senate and
tonnage tax was beaten in the house
last week. It was a notable week In
the legislature for many other reasons
The week saw the development of q
stin fight between the governor and
the Republican majority of the senate
the awakening of vigorous policy on
the part of the executive and a dispo.
sition on the part of large faction in
the senate to ignore the governor. An
extra session, because of the defeat OF
reapportionment, is now pending, and.
while the governor is intimating that
he may call one, the Southern Mime.
sofa senators are standing pat and
say they will never submit to any kind
of apportionment which will enlarge
the representation of the cities.
+ !. !.
The defeat of the Congdon reappor
tionment bill was probably the chief
event of the session. The bill had
passed the house by an Overwhelming
majority, had been amended in the
senate committee on reapportionment
and finally came up for hearing as a
special order on Thursday The final
vote on the bill showed it away by a
vote of SO to ~. Those who voted for
It were Amman, Boyle, Cheadle, DEN
eyre, Dunn, Dwinnell, Elwell, Fosseen,
Nroshaug, Gunderson, Gum, Hackney,
Hanson, G. D. Johnson, " l.. Johnson,
Johnston, 4 Herault. Pauly, Pugh, Rus.
tad, Sageng, Saugstad, G. Fl. Sullivan,
J. D. Sullivan, Sundberg, Wallace and
Wils0n.-27.
Those who voted against it were An
derson, Bedford, Benson, Carpenter,
eastman, Clague, Collier, e. F. Cook,
L. o. Cooke, Dale, Donaldson, Duea,
Duxbury, Glotzbach, Handlan, Hay
craft, Klein. Lende, McGrath, Marden,
Moonan, Murray, Nelson, Odell, Olson,
Peterson, Poehler, Putnam, Rockne,
Schaller, Stebbins, Swanson, Thoe,
Van Hoven, Weis and Works-36.
!. + !.
One of the features of the debate
was a motion made by Senator George
H. Sullivan of Washington county;
made, It is understood, at the sugges-
ton Of the governor, to recommit the
bill to the committee for amendments.
This was put as result of statements
made by senators opposed to the bill
that it was Objectionable. Senator Sui.
iAvan suggested that II this was so 1t
should be recommitted so that the OBJ
sections could be met Men like Sena.
tors Haycraft, Putnam, Duxbury and
ethers contended that enough time
had been given to the measure and
hat it should be settled at once. The
vste to recommit was lost by the exact
number accorded the bill on the final
ballot-36 to ~.
+ 4. +
The fight against reapportionment
has been conducted to large extent
by the Democratic senators, under the
direct leadership of Senator .Weis of
lie sueur. Both county optionists and
anti-optionists Joined in, voting against
the bill, although it was notable that
two Ramsey county Democrats, Hand.
Ian and Van Hoven, anti-county OPP
donists. voted against it. The debate
against the measure was conducted
by Senators Putnam, Haycraft, Lende.
Duxbury and others, while Senators
Dwinnell, J. D. Sullivan and George H..
Sullivan, Boyle, Hackney and others
led in the debate for it.
!. + K
Previous to the final submission of
the question there had been a good
deal Of jockeying for position. During
the day previous to the vote Governor
Eberhart decided to call caucus of |
Republican senators. Only fourteen |
of them appeared, the word having
gone out for the rest to remain away
for fear they would be bound by the
caucus. To these Governor Eberhart
represented that the Republican party
was pledged to pass a reapportionment
bill by its platform and he urged the
Republican senators to get together
on some sort of fair reapporttOn-
ment measure. He said he was not
committed to the Congdon bill-all he
wanted was fair reapportionment
measure. After the conference was
over the governor said he would not
say whether or not he would call an
extra session, as that would assume
the Republican senators would not
carry out their party pledges. But he
intimated clearly he might do so. Fol-
lowing the vote in the senate he still