Morris tribune., 1911-03-24
Defeat Of ReappOrtiOnment in
the State Senate.
GOVERNORS WISHES IGNORED
Lower Branch of Legislature Also il
Bad Humor Over the Turning
Down of the Congdon Bill.
Especial Correspondence.

Especial Correspondence).
st. Paul, March 20.-Reapportion
ment was defeated in the senate and
tonnage tax was beaten in the house
last week. 1t was a notable week in
the legislature for many other reasons.
The week saw the development of a
stiff fight between the governor and
the Republican majority of the senate,
the awakening of vigorous policy on
the part OF the executive and 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.
!. i. i
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 36 to 27. Those who voted for
| it were Ahmann, Boyle, Cheadie, Den
eyre, Dunn, Dwinnell, Elwell, Fosseen,
Froshaug, Gunderson, Gum, Hackney,
Hanson, c. D. Johnson, V. L. Johnson,
Johnston, L'Herault, Pauly, Pugh, Rus
tad. Sageng, Saugstad, G. H. Sullivan,
J. D. Sullivan, Sundberg, Wallace and
Wilson-27.
Those who voted against it were An
derson, Bedford, Benson, Carpenter,
eastman, Clague, Collier, c. 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
ri, 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
ivan suggested that if this was so it
| should be recommitted so that the OBJ.
| jections could be met. Men like Sena-
tors ,Hayeraft, Putnam, Duxbury and
others contended that enough time
| had been given to the measure and
that it should be settled at once. The
! vote to recommit was lost by the exact
number accorded the bill on the final
| baliot-36 to II.
!. !. 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 Hoyen, anti-eounty op-
tionists, 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.
X !. !.
Previous to the final submission of
the question there had been good
deal of jockeying for position. During
the day previous to the vote Governor
Eberhart decided to call a 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 reapportionment
bill by its platform and he urged the
on some sort of a fair reapportion-
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
refused to say whether or not he would
call an extra session, inasmuch as the
senate still has thirty days in which
10 reconsider it's action, and he hoped
that within that time something might
be done. If not it Is clearly the inten.
tion of the governor at this time to
call an extra session and put the re.
apportionment question to the front.
4. 4.