The Bismarck tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, N.D.) 1916-current, 1933-03-17

Governor indicates He viii Not
Sign Beer Bill But May
Withhold Veto
Washington. March i7.-(R-The
house Friday rejected the senate
amendments to the beer bill and sent
it to conference to compose the dif-
ferences between the two branches.
The Democratic leadership Of both
branches Is concentrating on getting
adjustments between the two In time
for President Roosevelt to sign the
bill Monday, which would allow sale
Of beer by April 1.
The main stumbling block to agree
ment is the 80 provision for alcoholic
percentage in the house bill, which
the senate cut to sos.
House managers In the contest be.
tween the two branches arc under In
struction also to insist on elimination
Of the senate amendments forbidding
sale Of beer to persons under 10, and
allowing wine up to sos per cent.
It was contended In the house de-
bate by anti-prohibitionist that the
matter of regulation against sale to
young people was for the states to
handle.
Senate Acted Thursday
The bill was pushed 20 near final
passage by what constitutes almost 4
minimum Of time for the senate On
such question. It debated the meas
1lre only six hours before . roll call
vote. cutting across party lines, passed
It ~ to 80.
That debate. brought; besides Tire
percentage and wine inclusion amend
ments, the change prohibiting the
sale Of the new beverages to persons
under Is years Of age.
The vote of northwest senator's ON
the beer bill follows:
For the bin: ..s.s..'
Duffy and LaFollette Of Wisconsin:
Bulow Of South Dakota and Wheeler
Of Montana.
Against the BILL
Frazier and Nye Of North Dakota.
Shipstead Of Minnesota was an
nounced as paired for and Norbeck
Of South Dakota paired against.
schall Of Minnesota was absent and
Erickson Of Montana ,lnaccounted for.
LACK OF STATE TAX.
CAUSES LANCER FROWN
How far North Dakota will benefit
by the beer bill passed by the q. 8.
senate depends on the fate Of . meas
ure approved by the recent state leg
islature providing for. sale and distri-
button Of beer when congress legal
1zes It. $500
indications Thursday we're that
Governor william LANCER win not
sign the bill lesalising the sale Of beer
in North Dakota but It may become
q law without his signature 1T mid
night Saturday.
In It's final form the governor does
not approve Of the measure, he indi-
Gated Friday In conversation With
several individuals who discussed the
matter with him.
comes from the fact that no state
tax other than the general sales tax,
is provided for the product. He
further questions provision whereby
private clubs and other organisation
may be given municipal licenses TO |
dispense the beverage. In effect this
might nullify the restriction limiting
sale to municipal stores ....
LANCER was to discuss the matter |
with Senator D. H. Hamilton, spon.
sor Of the measure. late Friday AZ
ternoon.
Wet leaders Friday saw other OBJ
stacles that may deny North Dako-
tans legalized beer. even though the |
state beer act becomes law, - they !
pointed to indications the state law
may be referred 70 the people for 4 !
vote. II this u done. with only sever
thousand signatures required. the act |
automatically would be suspended |
until the next statewide election In
June. 1884.
Statutes sim effective
North Dakota voters, 1t last falls |
election. repealed the provision In ths |
state constitution providing for peohi-
billion. but this did not repeal the pro-
hibition statutes.
A question hes been raised IN legal
circles whether the state beer bill Is
sufficient 20 permit distxibutton q |
1ederally legalised beer In view q IN |
existing statutory provision pgohib6t. |
1n- beer In North Dakota with alco- |
folic content Of over one-hA1 q pr |
cent. The view i taken BY many |
lawyers that q section In the statc |
1,Aep hill rev1AAlinR ~nll nckR A. pnffe