Willmar tribune. [volume] (Willmar, Minn.) 1895-1931, 1911-03-01

ested in the defeat of a practical
direct legislation bill
But an overwhelming majority of
both branches are pledged to enact
such law. This is particularly
true of the democrats. Their plat
form and campaign speeches en-
phazied that issue above all else.
To meet such situation. the only
way in which that general pre-eIec-
tion pledge can be kept and at the
same time do the brewery and other
special interests no harm is to pass
a bill with percentage so high that
the law will be practically worth
less. Albert Pfaender of New Ulm,
Democratic floor leader has father
ed bill. requiring thirty five per
cent to initiate. He led the fight
against the Campbell motion.
More than that, he was opposed to
advancing his own bill by making
it Especial order'' and on his own
motion it was placed on general
orders. IWenty-four democrats and
fo1ty-one republicans, as noted
above. voted with him.
TO make the situation clear, in
all seven initiative and referendum
bills were introduced early in the
session and referred to the cleo.
tions committee That committee
not only did not do anything to aid
the House in the matter, but after
holding them away from the parent
body for weeks. dumped all seven
| bills back without amendment or
recommendation of any kind. with
the Pfaender bill at the head of the
list. That happened February 2lst.
The Pfaender IS percent bill
came first, of course. Instead of
attempting to advance the measure
by making it a special order Mr..
Pfaender had it placed on general
orders Mr.. Campbell, whose bill
providing for eight percent to mi.
tate is backed by the Progressive
Republican League and other re.
form organizations, moved it be
made special order. By general
understanding three of the other
bills on the subject were indef.
nitely postponed. AS has already
been recordt d, the Campbell mo.
ton was defeated IS to 81.
Had it been carried, and the bill
been made Especial order' there
would have been no opportunity
for delay or lodging. When a
measure is being considered as a
special order. debate cannot be
restricted, an ave and no vote car
be demanded on every amendmen,
or action in connection with it,
and final vote on the bill is taken.
!, On general orders it is contrary
to the rules to call the roll or
amendments, and final action car
be deferred indefinitely if major.
ity is not hUnestly for the measure
No direct record of the percent.
ages can be had on general orders.
1t might even be possible for q
, majority to SO amend the bill. with.
out any public record Of their &C.
tlons, that the progressives would
have to vote against it.
Now | come to a more pleasinq
incident of the controversy. Or
Friday Mr.. Ptaender and several
who had voted with him were not
present. Accordingly friends oil
the CAMPBELL bill secured a recon.
sideration of the 65 to 81 vote
Representative Edwards made the
motion to reconsider, which wa:
seconded by Representative Con,
verse. A number of others wht
had voted against the Campbell mo-
ton on the previous Tuesday with
out fully understanding the signlf
cence Of their actions supported
Edwards and Converse, and tnest
together with almost all of the or
q jginal fiftyone. accomplished tn,
: reconsideration and made thu
r Campbell special order for March
: 9th at eleven o'clock by a vote O
D 81 to so. This second test on tn,
: question is different from the rol
S call published above in these par
= ticulars:
: ABSENT AND NOT VOTING
e Condgon, Fisher, Hafften, Hurry
Il Jelinek. Kelly, Knapp, knutson
: Papke, Pfaender. Sampson, Ihielan
y and Washburn. Of these absentee
: Mr.. Fisher was not present on Tues
day. All CT the others excepting
= knutson, Sampson and Washbur,
voted against the Campbell motion
on the 2lst.
h CHANGED FROM PFAENDEl
] TO CAMPBLL--Converse, Edwards
kunze, Hauge, Alex Nelson, repub
| licans; Keefe, Nygren, Schwartz
|! and Wiesniewski, democrats.
] CHANGED FROM Campbell
| TO Observation-Disclosures Ander
/ son and Fl. Nelson.