The weekly times-record. (Valley City, N.D.) 1912-1922, 1915-03-04
SENATE REFUSED TO
PASS HOUSE BILL NO. II

CONTINUED from Page I, Sec. ~
Englund, Ellingson, Gibbons, Gron
void, Heckle, Kirkheide, LLoftsgaard
Mallough, McFadden, Mudgett, Muir
ply, Nelson of Richland, diversion
Paulson, Putnam, Rowe, Skies, Steele
Thoreson, Trageton.
Putnam Explains Bill.
When the bill was announced for
final passage Senator Leutz moved
that it be referred to the senate com
mittee on appropriations but his mo
ton was not carried. Upon request
that some friends of the bill arise and
explain it Putnam stated that the OBJ
let IT the bill was the better enforce
ieuk of the prohibition laws Of the
tata He called attention to the re-
oetO that there had already been a
I'm picked for the place but that he
id not believe that the parties who
spread the report had any foundation
for his story. He did not believe that
the governor would make appoint
ments before the bill was passed and
that however, that was not to the
point as it would rest with the good
Judgment of Governor Hanna to name
some one who would be competent to
fulfill the duties of the enforcement
commission and he did not believe
that there was anyone in the senate
who thought the governor would make
a poor appointment. Mr.. Putnam
stated that the small communities of
the state would be especially benefit
ed by the naming Of an enforcement
and also called atten-
ton to the fact that the officer named
in the bill would be of considerable
assistance in obtaining evidence
against officers against whom removal
charges were filed.
Senator Martin of Morton county
seemed to oppose the bill for the rea-
son that it had been stated that GER
tain party was to be appointed for the
office. He did not appear to like the
certain party" nor some OF his as
sociates. He did not argue on the
merits of the bill but mostly upon the
personality of the party he thought
was going to be appointed as enforce
ment commissioner.
Bronson of Grand Forks was favor
a Bile to the bill and in his argument
stated that he thought there should be
some centralized power for the en-
forcement of the prohibition law if we
really wanted to be prohibition state.
Hamilton was against the bill for
the the reason that he thought the
people would eventually pay the
freight and he was opposed to the Gre
alton of any new offices. TIE thought
that it was up to the local officers to
enforce the law and that if this bill
was made a law it would give the
states attorneys and other entrusted
with the enforcement of the law a
good excuse to lay down and leave IT
all to the other fellow
Kretschmar was against the bill Tor
the reason that he lived in a COM
munity, where the prohibition law
enforced. He stated that in the town
he resided in it was impossible to
buy any intoxicating liquors and he
believed that upon local sentiment to
great extent depended the enforce
ment of the prohibition law.
Gibbons favored the bill as he stat
ed that North Dakota has secured a
bad name in other states. The report
had gone forth that there was a great
amount of blindpigging in the state
and he thought that the enforcement
officer would to a great degree over
come that, opinion. When his atten'
ton was called to the remarks ne
made, he stated that he desired to be
understood as stating that it was only
reports he had reference to; he knew
himself they were not true but that
was the opinion in other states.
Mcbride was opposed to the bill for
the reason that it would create add
tional expense and would do no par
ticular good.
Allen was against the bill. He
stated that he was one Of the original
prohibitionists in the state, had voted
for it in the constitution and did not
use liquor or narcotics in any form
He stated that in his opinion if the
people wanted action they could al
ways get it from the local officials. He