Copyright
C. J. (Carl J.) Buell.

The Minnesota Legislature of 1915 online

. (page 5 of 13)
Online LibraryC. J. (Carl J.) BuellThe Minnesota Legislature of 1915 → online text (page 5 of 13)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


Dunn, R. C. Nelson Vibert

Duxbury Orr Wallace

Gandrud Potter Weis

Gjerset Putnam Westlake

Gillam, Lende and Nord were unavoidably absent.

It has been a battle of many years, but at last the men
have won.

The Twin City Rapid Transit Company Its Blunder

And Its Success.

In about eight years the franchises of the Twin City
Rapid Transit Company will expire.



The Minnesota Legislature of 1915 41

When that times comes the people of the two great
cities will have a chance to make a new deal and a fairer one.

The company is in a hurry. They don't want to wait.
Times are changing. The people are getting wiser. The
public ownership movement is growing very rapidly.

Early in the session this company, thru certain mem-
bers of the -St. Paul Association of Commerce, secured the
consent of Senator Denegre to introduce a bill that just
suited them. Senator Orr joined with him and f they intro-
duced the bill, not as their own, but "by request."

This bill tied the people of the three large cities of the
state hand and foot and turned them over to the company
gagged and bound.

It ripped the hoine rule charters of St. Paul and Duluth
wide open, gave the company everything they could ask
and more, and left the people without a word to say.

But this bill did not last long. The people began to
be heard from. The St. Paul Daily News showed up its
true inwardness. Commercial clubs and other organizations
passed resolutions against it. The St. Paul City Council
directed City Attorney O'Neil to investigate and report; and
when his report was read, the bill was condemned unani-
mously. The Minneapolis City Council also condemned the
bill after the citizens had packed the chamber to overflowing
in opposition.

Orr repudiated the bill, and later both he and Denegre
withdrew it and there it died.

It was plain that St. Paul and Duluth would have nothing
to do with such a measure.

The company saw that it had blundered and blundered
badly; and it started on a different plan.

St. Paul and Duluth, with their home rule charters and
their popular referendum were both left out, and their new
bill applied to Minneapolis only.

At the request of the company the Civic and Commerce
Association had a bill drawn by Mr. Rockwood, its attorney,
that looked fair on its surface; but lacked many things that
it should have contained to safeguard the people's rights.

In order to make its passage sure, it provided that no
franchise to the company should go into effect until ratified
by the people.

The bill was still very dangerous; but it was almost
impossible to make the legislature see the danger.

A considerable majority of the Hennepin delegation had
been brought to favor it. Men who had denounced the cor-
porations in unmeasured terms were found voting for it.
The referendum clause saved it.

When the bill came up in the House April 13th, Mr.
Guilford made a good but losing fight to amend it so as to
give the city council at all times the "power to require rea-
sonable extensions, betterments, equipment and adequate
service, and to regulate construction, operation, rates of
fares, and the power herein granted shall not be contracted
away."

This amendment was defeated 57 to 62.



42 The Minnesota Legislature of 1915



Those who voted in the affirmative were:


Anderson


Holmes


Pratt


Baldwin


Hompe


Putnam


Bendixen


Hulbert


Searls


Bernard


Indrehus


Sliter


Bjorge


Johnson, J. T.


Smith


Bjornson


Johnson, M.


Sorflaten


Burrows


Kuntz


Stevens


Christiansen


Larson


Stoetzel


Corning


Lattin .


Swanson


Davis


Lee


Teigen, A. F.


Dealand


McGrath


Teigen, L. O.


Devoid


Madigan


Thompson, H. O.


Frye


Marwin


Tollefson


Gordon


Morken


Vasaly


Grant


Nordgren


Wefald


Guilford


Norton


Wilson


Hafften


Novak


Wold


Hauser


Olien


Woodfill


Hynes, J. H.


Peterson, A.


Mr. Speaker



Those who voted in the negative were:
Adams Harrison, J. M. Peterson, A. M.

Baker Hinds, E. R. Pikop

Bessette Hogenson Pless

Borgen Knutson Ribenack

Bouck Konzen Rodenberg

Boyd Larimore Sanborn

Brown Lennon Sawyer

Condon Leonard Seebach

Dare Lydiard Schrooten

Dunleavy McLaughlin Scott

Dwyer Malmberg Southwick

Erickson Marschalk -Steen

Ferrier Miner Sttimck

Flinn Minnette Sudheimer

Gerlich Murphy Swenson

Gill Nelson Syverson

Gilman Nietzel Thompson, A. L.

Girling Nimocks Thornton

Greene North Warner

Haislet Papke Wilkins

Harrison, H. H. Parker

As introduced the bill contained this clause: "The fran-
chise may provide for the operation of suburban cars over
the tracks of the company."

Mr. Guilford moved to amend this clause to read as
follows: "The city shall reserve the right to authorize any
existing or future suburban railway company the joint use
of tracks, poles, wires, appliances, power and electric cur-
rent, of any company to which a franchise is granted under
this act, and the franchise shall contain provisions for de-
termining the compensation to be paid for such joint use."

This amendment carried, yeas 65 and nays 57, as follows :

Those who voted in the affirmative were:
Anderson Bernard Bjornson

Barten Bjorge Borgen

Bendixen Bjorklund Boyd



The Minnesota Legislature of 1915



43



Burrows


Johnson, J. T.


Searls


Christiansen


Johnson, M.


Sliter


Corning


Larson


Sorflaten


Davis


Lattin


Spooner


Dealand


Lee


Stevens


Devoid


McGrath


Stoetzel


Erickson


Madigan


Swanson


Frye


Marwin


Swenson


Gill


Morken


' Teigen, A. F.


Gordon


Nordgren


Teigen, L. O.


Grant


Norton


Thompson, H. O.


Guilford


Novak


Tollefson


Hafften


Olien


Vasaly


Hauser


Parker


Wefald


Hynes, J. H.


Peterson, A.


Wilson


Holmes


Pikop


Wold


Hompe


Pratt


Woodfill


Hulbert


Putnam


Mr. Speaker


Indrehus


Sawyer





Those who voted in the negative were:
Adams Hinds, B. R. Papke

Baker Hogenson Peterson, A. M.

Baldwin Kneeland Pless

Bessette Knutson Ribenack

Bouck Konzen Sanborn

Brown Kuntz Seebach

Condon Larimore Schrooten

Dare Lennon Scott

Dunleavy Leonard Smith

Dwyer Lydiard Southwick

Ferrier McLaughlin Steen

Flinn Malmberg Stenvick

Gerlich Marschalk Sudheimer

Gilman Minnette Syverson

Girling Murphy Thompson, A. L.

Greene Nelson Thornton

Haislet Nietzel Warner

Harrison, H. H. Nimocks . Weld

Harrison, J. M. North Wilkins

The bill was considerably improved.

Why there should have been any opposition to either
of the Guilford amendments it is difficult to understand;
but the supporters of the bill as it was reported out by a
majority of the Hennepin delegation made strong pleas
against any amendments, and many country members vote
on city questions with the majority of the city members.

And then they were too much influenced by the refer-
endum clause.

A 'large number of members were really made to believe
that something must be done at this session.

Another thing that helped pass the bill was the fact
that Mr. Devoid, a Socialist member, had made a strong
fight against it. His arguments were good but prejudice
is strong; and some members frankly admitted that they
were influenced to vote for the bill because the Socialist
opposed it.

On the other hand, one or two open-minded members



44



The Minnesota Legislature of 1915



gave Devoid credit for helping them to see objections to
the bill.

But the corporation men had been very busy trading
for the bill and tying up all the votes possible.

On the final ballot the bill passed 77 to 44.

Those who voted in the affirmative were:



M.



Adams

Baker

Bessette

Bjorklund

Borgen

fiouck

Boyd

Brown

Burrows

Condon

Dare

Dealand

Dunleavy

Dwyer

Erickson

Ferrier

Flinn

Gerlich

Gill

Oilman

Girling

Gordon

Haislet

Harrison, H. H.

Harrison, J. M.

Hinds, E. R.

Those who
Anderson
Baldwin
Barten
Bernard
Bjorge
Bjornson
Christiansen
Corning
Davis
Devoid
Frye
Grant
Guilford
Hafften
Hauser

When this bill reached the Senate William A. Campbell
made a hard fight to amend it in several particulars, but
here again prejudice was strong, and he failed either to
amend or defeat the bill.

On final passage the vote stood 45 to 21.

Those who voted in the affirmative were:
Adams Andrews Benson

Alley Baldwin Blomgren



Hulbert

Hflgenson

Johnson, J. T.

Kneeland

Knutson

Konzen

Kuntz

Larimore

Lennon

Leonard

Lydiard

Madigan

Malmberg

Marschalk

Miner

Minnette

Morken

Murphy

Nelson

Nietzel

Nimocks

North

Papke

Parker

Peterson, A

Pikop



Pless

Pratt

Putnam

Ribenack

Rodenberg

Sanborn

Sawyer

Searles

Schrooten

Scott

Smith

Southwick

Spooner

Steen

Stevens

Sudheimer

Swenson

Syverson

Thompson, A. L.

Thornton

Tollefson

Warner

Wefald

Weld

Wilkins

Mr. Speaker



voted in the negative


were:


Hynes, J. H.


Peterson, A.


Holmes


Seebach .


Hompe


Sliter


Indrehus


Sorflaten


Johnson, M.


Stenvick


Larson


Stoetzel


Lattin


Swanson


Lee


Teigen, A. F.


McGrath


Teigen, L. O.


McLaughlin


Thompson, H. O.


Marwin


Vasaly


Nordgren


Wilson


Norton


Wold


Novak


Woodfill


Olien





The Minnesota Legislature of 1915 45



Buckler


Griggs


Peterson, G


. M.


Callahan


Grose


Putnam




Campbell, A. S.


Handlan


Ries




Carley


Healy


Rustad




Collester


Hegnes


Sullivan, G.


H.


Denegre


Hilbert


Swenson




Dunn, R. C.


Holmberg


Turnham




Dunn, W. W.


Johnston


Van Hoven




Duxbury


McGarry


Vibert




Dwinnell


Nord


Wallace




Gandrud


O'Nell


Ward '




Gjerset


Pauly


Weis




Glotzbach


Peterson, E. P.


Westlake





Those who voted in the negative were:
Bonniwell . Knopp Peterson, F. H.

Campbell, W. A. Lende Potter

Gardner Lobeck Rockne

Gillam Millett Rystrom

Hanson Nelson -Sageng

Jackson Orr Steffen

Jones Palmer Vermilya

These twenty-one are pretty strong anti-corporation men.

The Jitney Bus Bill.

This was another bill that the street railway company
was anxious to get thru, but here they failed completely.

For this little funeral the people are largely indebted
to Pratt of Anoka, who has shown himself to be one of the
keenest and ablest men in the House, always fearless and
independent.

If the traction company can't keep the jitneys off the
streets entirely, the next best thing is to tie them up as
much as possible, with heavy license fees and excessive in-
demnity bonds, and that is what this bill was for.

Westlake and Wallace were its sponsors in the Senate.

Westlake was also father of a bill to permit the rail-
ways of the state to charge 2^ cents per mile passenger
fare. This bill did not get very far, tho Pennington, J. J.
Hill and other railway magnates, at a great public hearing,
made eloquent pleas for an increase of passenger fare.

CHAPTER VII.
GOOD ROADS.

Everybody wants good roads.

The dispute comes over the question how they shall be
built and paid for.

It is universally admitted that good roads greatly increase
the value of lands that abut upon them or lie near them.

The farm crops are worth much more, if there is a good
road over which to haul them to market for it costs much
less to get them there.

All products of equal grade bring the same price at the
market, regardless of the distance they have been hauled or
the cost of getting them there.

Let us suppose a farm of 160 acres any distance from
market on a very poor road. That farm is not very valuable.
It can't be sold for a very large price. The cost of hauling its



46 The Minnesota Legislature of 1915

products to the market is so great that their value is largely
.eaten up in the expense of transportation.

Now suppose a good road to be built to the market town.
What effect will it have on the selling price of that farm?
What effect will it have on the selling price of all the land
along the road, from the market town out as far as the road
is built?

Any good road, economically built, suitable to the needs
of the people who own the adjoining lands, will cause an
increase in the value of those lands by more than enough
to pay for the entire cost of the road.

The Elwell Road Law.

This law owes its name to Senator Elwell of Minneapolis
who secured its passage.

The vital features of this law only need to be stated.
The injustice of the law will speak for itself.

First, only six land owners were required to sign a
petition to start proceedings for an Elwell road.

Second, a mere majority of the board of county com-
missioners could then order the road built.

Third, only one-fourth of the cost of the road must be
paid by the benefited land owners; while three-fourths
must be shared by other people who got no direct benefit
at all; and worst of all these three-fourths could be paid
for in bond issues, thus saddling this part of the cost upon
the county and state to be paid later.

Fourth, when lands were drained 'tinder the ditch law,
the dirt can be used to make a good road along the ditch.

The benefited land owners have to pay the entire cost
as they ought.

After the Elwell law was passed these could be called
"roads" instead of ditches. The lands would be drained just
the same, but the benefited owners would pay only one-
fourth the cost, the whole county and state paying the rest.

Thus this law lent itself to fraud as well as to injustire.

A considerable number of both houses had been elected
to repeal the Elwell law. The most active and determined
of these was Senator Vermilya of Olmstead county, who intro-
duced a bill for repeal early in the session.

March 3rd the bill was passed and sent over to the House.

Vermilya, O'Neil, Rockne, Duxbury and Geo. Sullivan
spoke in favor of repeal.

Nord, Adams, Andrews and Dwinnell defended the Elwell
law.

As the discussion progressed it became very plain that
the opponents of the law had the best of the argument.
Several senators, who had not given much thought to the
question, were convinced and voted against the Elwell law.
This feeling was expressed by Senator Alley who declared that
he had been convinced that the law should be repealed.

The vote stood thirty-nine to twenty-five in favor of repeal
as follows:

Those who favored repeal were:

Alley Bonniwell Campbell, W. A.

Benson Buckler Carley

Blomgren Campbell, A. S. Duxbury



' The Minnesota Legislature of 1915 47



Gandrud


Lende


Rustad


Gardner


Lobeck


Rystrom


Gillam


Millett


Sageng


Gjerset


Nelson


Steffen


Glotzbach


O'Neill


Sullivan, G. H.


Hanson


Peterson, E. P.


Sullivan, J. D.


Hilbert


Peterson, F. H.


Swenson


Holmberg


Potter


Turnham


Johnston


Ries


Verlimya


Knopp


Rockne


Ward


Those against


repeal were:




Adams


Grose


Palmer


Andrews


Hand Ian


Pauly


Baldwin


Healy


Peterson, G. M.


Callahan


Hegnes


Van Hoven


Collester


Jackson


Vibert


Denegre


Jones


Wallace


Dunn, W. W.


McGarry


Westlake


Dwinnell


Nord




Griggs


Orr





It is noticeable that the opponents of repeal nearly all
came from the cities and the northern part of the state; and
yet the cities and the iron country had to pay the largest part
of the expense under the Elwell law.

Wm. A. Campbell was the only city senator to vote for
repeal.

R. C. Dunn was excused. Putnam and Weis did not vote.

In the House it was the same. When the bill came up, on
special order March llth, it was put over till the 18th at the
request of the city members, and then, on the 18th, Lari-
more tried to postpone a week more. This move met with a
storm of opposition, and was defeated forty-six to sixty.

Much of the opposition was vigorous and to the point.

Dealand of Nobles county "Let's do it now."

Christiansen of Lac Qui Parle "Why haven't they intro-
duced amendments before this?"

Seebach of Goodhue "This is House file No. 2. Haven't
we had time enough?"

Johnson of Meeker "I can't see any reason for delay.
Let's knock it in the head."

Olien of Yellow Medicine, "We can't make the Elwell law
good. It is a bad egg. Throw it away."

Oscar Swenson of Nicollet "If we repeal the law it will
not affect existing contracts. Extra time is wanted for lobby-
ing purposes. Repeal it now."

Stenvick of Clearwater declared his county had refused
to use the law. As county attorney he had opposed it as
unjust. Repeal it now.

Bjornson objected that the proposed amendments were
out of order, as they were not germane to the bill. The
speaker sustained him.

Holmes made a strong point. "Who pays for the Elwell
roads? All the people. Who vote the Elwell roads? A few
benefited land owners."

Several members urged delay, but no one attempted to
defend the law on its merits.



48



The Minnesota Legislature of 1915'



Sawyer continually interrupted the opponents of the law
by asking if they had built any roads under it, apparently
oblivious to the fact that those who had not used it, had got
no part of the benefit, but must pay a part of the cost.

The Elwell law was repealed in the House by a vote of
eighty to forty-one.

The vote for repeal was :



Anderson

Baker

Baldwin

Barten

Bendixen

Bessette

Bjorge

Bjornson

Boehmke

Boyd

Carmichael

Christiansen

Davis

Dealand

Erickson

Ferrier

Plinn

Prye

Gerlich

Gill

Girling

Gordon

Hafften

Haislet

Hauser

Hynes, J. H.

Hogenson



Holmes

Hompe

Hulbert

Indrehus

Johnson, J. T.

Johnson, M.

Knutson

Konzen

Kuntz

Larson

Lattin

Lee

Leonard

McLaughlin

Madigan

Malmberg

Minnette

Moeller

Morken

Mueller

Nietzel

Nordgren

Novak

Olien

Papke

Parker

Peterson, A.



Pikop

Pless

Pratt

Putnam

Sanborn

Seebach

Schrooten

Sliter

Smith

Sorflaten

Spooner

Stenvick

Stevens

Stoetzel

Swanson

Swenson

Teigen, A. F.

Teigen, L. O.

Thompson, A. L.

Tollefson

Wefald

Welch

Wilkins

Wilson

Wold

Woodflll



Bernard Harrison, J. M. Pendergast

Bjorklund Hinds, E. R. Peterson, A. M.

Borgen Kneeland Ribenack

Bouck Larimore Rodenberg

Brown Lennon Sawyer

Burrows Lydiard Scott

Condon McGrath Southwick

Corning Marwin Steen

Dare Miner Thompson, H. 0.

Dunleavy ' Murphy Thornton

Dwyer Nelson Vasaly

Gilman Ni mocks Warner

Greene North Weld

Guilford Norton

The following did not vote:

Adams, Devoid, Grant, H. H. Harrison, Marschalk, Searls,
Sudheimer, Syverson, Mr. Speaker.

Adams, Grant, Marschalk and Syverson had been excused.

H. H. Harrison, Searls and Sudheimer had voted a few
moments before.



The Minnesota Legislature of 1915 49

Devoid had not answered at roll-call and had not been
found.

Speaker Flowers was present of course, but is not
recorded as voting.

The Dunn Road Law.

The same members who had come pledged to repeal the
Elwell law were also determined to amend the Dunn road law
in some very important particulars.

The Dunn law had placed great power in a state highway
commission, and had taken away from the people immediately
interested in the roads a large part of the control.

It was freely charged that the state highway commission
employed young and inexperienced men as assistant engineers,
that these young men were often impractical, doing poor work
at great expense to the counties.

This law was amended so as to cut out the worst of
the evils.

In my opinion it will need much more amendment before
it will work justly, or give satisfactory results.

CHAPTER VIII.
TEMPERANCE MEASURES.

In both House and Senate there was a considerable number
who were avowed prohibitionists though only three were
members of that party. Some of these were representing
"wet" districts, and voted the wish of their constituents
rather than their personal convictions. Several who were
not avowed prohibitionists voted for Prohibition because they
felt their districts expected it of them. A number who
favored county option opposed Prohibition, because they be-
lieved that it was better to allow the county option law to
have two years to prove its usefulness before going any
further. There were enough of these to prevent the passage
of a prohibition amendment to the constitution.

On the whole the opponents of the liquor traffic got more
from this legislature by far than in all the preceding history
of the state.

The County Option Bill.

This bill came up in the Senate on Thursday, Feb. 4th.

It was carefully drawn providing for a special election
upon petition of twenty-five per cent of the votes for governor
at the last preceding election.

The bill did nothing but refer to the voters of the county
"Shall the sale of liquor be prohibited?" When once deter-
mined the question cannot be raised again for a term of three
years.

The voters of the entire county were to decide whether
the whole country should be "dry" or the present system of
"local option" should continue. The supporters of the bill
pointed out that under the present so-called "local option"
law the farmers outside the village or city limits have no
voice on this question.

It would seem that the village is hardly a logical social
unit to determine a question that is of sucii vital importance
to all the people of the surrounding country.

The county is the unit for the support of paupers. The



50 The Minnesota Legislature of 1915

county must stand the expense for the prosecution of crim-
inals. Why then is not the county the logical unit to decide
whether this pauper-breeding, crime-producing traffic shall
be permitted or not?

Wrongs should never be licensed, and right acts need
no license. An acknowledged evil like the liquor traffic should
never be forced on the people of any community, and no com-
munity should be permitted to selfishly maintain such a traffic
to the physical, moral, and financial injury of the people
outside such community who are denied all voice or vote on
the question.

The first attack upon the bill was made by Senator J. D.
Sullivan of St. Cloud, who offered an amendment to force the
liquor traffic on every community in the county in case a
majority of the county voted "wet."

Senator Sullivan denounced the bill in a long and vigor-
ous speech, declaring that it violated every principle of home
rule and local self government wholly ignoring the fact that
his own amendment was a far worse violation of local self
government.

This amendment of the St. Cloud senator was too much
for even George H. Sullivan of Washington county, who de-
clared himself a logical believer in the present local option
system and would not stand for any law that forced the liquor
traffic on any unwilling community nor would he vote to de-
prive any community of liquor if they wanted it licensed.

The flaw in the last part of Geo. Sullivan's reasoning
is this:

That the present so-called "local option" system does force
the liquor traffic on the farmers who live outside the village
limits, and without whom the village could not exist.

And it does force the expense of the traffic on the whole
county, who must support the paupers and prosecute' the
criminals directly resulting from the license system.

In spite of the utter lack of logic and consistency the
following twenty-nine senators voted for the J. D. Sullivan
amendment:

Baldwin Grose Peterson, G. M.

Bonniwell Handlan Ries

Buckler Healy Rockne

Callahan Hilbert Steffen

Campbell, A. S. Johnston Sullivan, J. D.

Carley Knopp Swenson

Collester McGarry Van Hoven

Denegre Millett Weis

Dunn, W. W. Nord Westlake

Glotzbach Pauly .

The following thirty-eight were against it:
Adams Dwinnell Holmberg

Alley Gandrud Jackson

Andrews Gardner Jones

Benson Gillam Lende

Blomgren Gjerset Lobeck

Campbell, W. A. * Griggs Nelson

Dunn, R. C. Hanson O'Neill

Duxbury Hegnes Orr



The Minnesota Legislature of 1915



51



Palmer


Rustad


Vermilya


Peterson, E. P.


Rystrom


Vibert


Peterson, F. H.


Sageng


Wallace


Potter


Sullivan, G. H.


Ward


Putnam,


Turnham





The next attack was made by Senator W. W. Dunn of
St. Paul, attorney for the Hamm Brewing Company, who tried
to cut out the special election feature of the bill and mix the
question up with all the distracting interests of a general
election.

This plea for economy caught R. C. Dunn of Mille Lacs
and Ward of Farimont; but Collester and G. M. Peterson
voted against it and it was lost thirty-one yeas to thirty-six
nays.

Then on motion of Geo. H. Sullivan, by a vote of thirty-


1 2 3 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Online LibraryC. J. (Carl J.) BuellThe Minnesota Legislature of 1915 → online text (page 5 of 13)