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

The Minnesota Legislature of 1915 online

. (page 6 of 13)
Online LibraryC. J. (Carl J.) BuellThe Minnesota Legislature of 1915 → online text (page 6 of 13)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


seven to thirty, the date of the special election was fixed
on Monday instead of Tuesday, for the benefit of traveling
men.

It is difficult to see any valid objection to this amend-
ment and there are good reasons for it. Yet it only secured
the votes of the following "dry" senators: Adams, Wm. A.
Campbell, Duxbury, Griggs, Hegnes, Jones.

All the other "drys" seemed to fear the "Greeks bearing
gifts."

On final passage county option won 36 to 31 as follows:

Those who voted in the affirmative were:



Adams


Griggs


Peterson, E.


P.


Alley


Hanson


Peterson, F.


H.


Andrews


Hegnes


Potter




Benson


Holmberg


Putnam




Blomgren


Jackson


Rustad




Campbell, W. A.


Jones


Rystrom




Dunn, R. C.


Lende


Sageng




Duxbury


Lobeck


Turnham




Dwinnell


Nelson


Vermilya




Gandrud


O'Neill


Vibert




Gillam


Orr


Wallace




Ojerset


Palmer


Ward




Those who


voted in the negative


were :




Baldwin


Grose


Ries




Bonniwell


Handlan


Rockne




Buckler


Healy


Steffen




Callahan


Hilbert


Sullivan, G.


H.


Campbell, A. S.


Jonnston


Sullivan, J.


T).


Carley


Knopp


Swenson




Collester


McGarry


Van Hoven




Denegre


Millett


Weis




Dunn, W. W.


Nord


Westlake




Gardner


Pauly






Glotzbach


Peterson, G. M.







John Lind.

After the bill had passed the Senate a hearing was held
in the House chamber at which, among other speakers, Ex-
Governor John Lind made a most effective argument for the
bill, completely answering every point made by the paid



52 The Minnesota Legislature of 1915

attorneys of the breweries who were there opposing the
measure.

In the House the contest was long and fierce. The
special order was set for eleven o'clock Wednesday morning,
February 24th. Long before that hour arrived the gallaries
were packed with friends and foes of the bill.

Oratory was abundant; but mostly had little bearing on
the merits of the measure.

Mr. Warner opened in favor of the bill with a speech
that fairly set forth the reasons urged by its supporters.

He was followed by Mr. Carmichael, who eloquently
defended the "foundations of our free institutions" which were
in great danger of being overthrown if such a measure should
ever become a law. Even our Christianity and Civilization
are endangered.

Others who spoke for the bill were Hompe, Stenvick,
Holmes, Wefald, Corning, A. F. Teigen, Bendixen and
Bjornson.

Against the bill were H. H. Harrison, Lennon, Moeller,
Pendergast, Minette, Dwyer, Devoid, Oilman, Davis and Lari-
more.

Devoid pleaded the cause of the workingman that would
be thrown out of employment, wholly ignoring two important
facts :

First, that any definite amount of money spent for liquor,
only employs a small fraction of the labor that the same
amount of money employs when spent for other necessaries
of life, and

Second, that under a county option system the readjust-
ment of business would be very gradual and the displaced men
would have plenty of chance to find other employment.

Mr. Lennon, who represents the district where the Min-
neapolis Brewing Company is located, made a strong plea
against the bill, quoting President Wilson's argument for
local option, but wholly ignoring the facts that Wilson favored
local option as against no option, as a means of allowing the
people to get rid of saloons, and further, that Wilson's words
are a stronger plea still for county option, for he declared
that the "people interested" should be allowed to vote on the
question; and surely the people of the county are very espe-
cially interested.

Mr. Lennon also feared for the farmer whose corn would
go begging in the market if it could not be sold to make
whiskey of. He was forcibly answered by the statement that
the farmers would "raise more hogs and less hell."

Larimore, Davis and Harrison declared their belief in
state wide prohibition, and said they would vote for such a
bill; but Mr. Larimore, at least had written a letter to the
Saturday Lunch Club and to Mr. Chadbourne of the Associa-
tion of Church Clubs, which are hardly capable of any other
interpretation than that he would, if elected, vote for a county
option bill.

It is hard to understand the vote of Mr. Sawyer against
the bill. He has always heretofore voted for the measure,
and time and again has declared that he would support
county option and all other reasonable temperance measures.






The Minnesota Legislature of 1915 53

Mr. Baker of Fillmore County also repudiated his written
and verbal pledges and voted against the bill.

We can respect the honest opponent of county option,
who made his campaign on that issue and faithfully carried
out the will of his constituents; but what shall we think of
the man who repudiates his pledges, misrepresents his district
and casts his ballot against a measure that he was pledged
and elected to support!

After nearly four hours of oratory for and against the
bill, and when the liquor men began to see that they were
defeated unless they could gain time to bring pressure to
bear on some of the weaker ones that were pledged to support
the bill, a desperate effort was made to take a recess.

If anything could beat this bill this would do it, but
there were several opponents of the bill who refused to lend
themselves to such tactics, and so all the attempts failed.

It was noticeable, however, that Spooner, Erickson, Saw-
yer and Baker voted with the wets to gain time.

On final passage Sawyer and Baker stayed with the wets,
but Spooner and Erickson voted for the bill.

Why? Perhaps Mr. Spooner can explain this course. He
should be given every possible opportunity to do so. He will
need it.

One vote was all that was needed, and it looked very much
as if Mr. Spooner was helping them to get it.

There were three motions for a recess. The first was
offered by Mr. Lydiard and was voted down sixty-one to
sixty-seven.

Four men who were pledged to support county option
voted for this recess: Baker, Erickson, Sawyer and Spooner.

Four opponents of county option voted with the "drys" to
defeat the motion for a recess, H. H. Harrison, Scott, Sliter
and Swenson.

The next motion for a recess was offered by Mr. Erickson
and was supported by the same four men pledged to county
option. Only Scott, Swenson and Thornton of the wets op-
posed this motion.

Mr. Konzen, a county option man, was now feeling quite
weak and sick, and felt that he must get out into the open
air and get something to eat, so he moved to recess until seven
p. m. This motion received only his own and the otlrer four
supposedly "dry" votes and was defeated sixty-three to sixty-
five. Scott, Swenson and Thornton were the only '"wets" to
vote against this motion. At this point Mr. Spooner spoke in
favor of a recess, saying he was very hungry.

It had now become plain that no recess could be secured,
so the next move was to try to kill the bill by amendments:

The first amendment was offered by McGrath of St. Paul
and attempted to exempt all cities of the state from the
operation of the bill.

This was defeated fifty-two to seventy-five. Baker,
Sawyer and Erickson voted for this amendment to kill the
bill.

The following opponents of the bill refused to vote for
this amendment to kill it: Brown, Burrows, Greene, H. H.
Harrison, J. H. Hynes, Murphy, Novak, Scott and Swenson.

The next, move to kill the bill was made by Gerlich of



54



The Minnesota Legislature of 1915



Mankato who tried to exempt from its operation the three
large cities of the state.

This amendment was lost thirty-nine to eighty-six, the
thirty-nine were all consistent opponents of the bill and the
following twenty-one who finally voted against the bill refused
to help kill it in this way: Baker, Barten, Brown, Burrows,
Green, H. H. Harrison, E. R. Hinds, J. H. Hynes, Kuntz, Malm-
berg, Miner, Minnette, Murphy, Nelson, Novak, Papke, Rod-
enberg, Sawyer, Scott, Smith, Stoetzel and Swenson.

After Mr. Welch had failed to amend the bill so as to
permit a brewer located in a dry county to sell at wholesale
within that county, the bill was passed by a vote of sixty-six
to sixty-two.

Devoid not voting, and Boyd, who was sick and excused,
making up the total House of 130.

Those who voted in the affirmative were:



Adams


Holmes


Pratt


Anderson


Hompe


Putnam


Bendixen


Hulbert


Sanborn


Bernard


Johnson, J. T.


Searls


B jorge


Johnson, M.


Sorflaten


Bjorklund


Kneeland


Southwick


Bjornson


Knutson


Spooner


Boehmke


Konzen


Stenvick


Christiansen


Larson


Stevens


Corning


Lattin


Swanson


Dare


Lee


Teigen, A. F.


Dealand


Madigan


Teigen, L. O.


Erickson


Marschalk


Thompson, A. L.


Flinn


Marwin


Thompson, H. O.


Frye


Morken


Tollefson


Gill


Nordgren


Vasaly


Gordon


Norton


Warner


Grant


Olien


Wefald


Guilford


Parker


Weld


Harrison, J. M.


Peterson, A.


Wilson


Hauser


Peterson, A. M.


Wold


Hogenson


Pikop


Woodflll


Those who


voted in the negative


were:


Baker


Greene


Moeller


Baldwin'


Hafften


Mueller


Barten


Haislet


Murphy


Bessette


Harrison, H. H.


Nelson


Borgen


Hinds, E. R.


Nietzel


Bouck


Hynes, J. H.


Nimocks


Brown


Indrehus


North


Burrows


Kuntz


Novak


Carmichael


Larimore


Papke


Condon


Lennon


Pendergast


Davis


Leonard


Pless


Dunleavy


Lydiard


Ribenack


Dwyer


McGrath


Rodenberg


Ferrier


McLaughlin


Sawyer


Gerlich


Malmberg


Seebach


Oilman


Miner


Schrooten


Girling


Minnette


Scott



The Minnesota Legislature of 1915 55

Sliter Sudheimer Welch

Smith Swenson Wilkins

Steen Syverson Mr. Speaker

Stoetzel Thornton

Great credit is due to Oscar A. Swenson of Nicollet
county for his stand during the long contest.

He was expected by his constituents to vote against the
bill and did so; but he stood out firmly in strong combat to
some of those who voted for the bill on final passage, in his
refusal to support any scheme for recess or delay to allow
the "wets" to get in their work to defeat the bill; and he
stoutly opposed all amendments to kill or emasculate it.

State Wide Prohibition.

This question came up in two different forms:

First, Prohibition by statute,

Second, Prohibition by amendment to the constitution.

There is little doubt that a statute prohibiting the manu-
facture, importation, and sale of all intoxicating liquors within
the state of Minnesota would be declared constitutional.

There is some doubt whether this would be a wise course
to pursue.

A statute passed by one legislature can always be-
repealed by the next or any succeeding legislature.

The question would not be settled. It would be all the
while in politics. There would.be a constant strife between
"wets" and "drys." The liquor interests would be on the
watch to secure a majority of each legislature favorable to the
repeal of the statute. This would be almost sure to continue
until one side or the other was worn out and ready to give
up.

For these reasons many members of both houses were
not willing to support the extremely drastic bills introduced
into the Senate by Mr. Lobeck and into the House by Mr.
Anderson.

The Lobeck bill came up on March llth and received only
17 votes as follows:

Andrews Hegnes Putnam

Blomgren Lende Rystrom

Gandrud Lobeck Sageng

Gillam Palmer Turnham

Gjerset Peterson, E. P. Vermilya

Hanson Peterson, F. H.

Even some of these voted for the bill out of personal
regard for Mr. Lobeck.

Constitutional Prohibition.

To submit the question to a vote of the people is a dif-
ferent matter.

The people are the source of all governmental authority.
They alone can amend the constitution.

Senator Gandrud had introduced a bill to submit state
wide prohibition to the people.

This bill came from the temperance committee with two
reports :

Gandrud, Vermilya and Lobeck recommended the bill to
pass.



56



The Minnesota Legislature of 1915



Hilbert, Van Hoven, Pauly and Ward recommended
indefinite postponement.

Twenty-eight voted to pass the bill



Alley

Andrews

Benson

Buckler

Campbell, W. A.

Gandrud

Gillam

Gjerset

Hanson

Hegnes



Holmberg

Jackson

Jones

Lende

Lobeck

O'Neill

Orr

Palmer

Peterson, E. P.

Peterson, F. H.



Potter

Putnam

Rockne

Rustad

Rystrom

Sageng

Turnham

Vermilya



In the House this question made much more noise.

When the county option bill was passed Mr. Larimore
made a most bitter fight against it; but declared that he
would fa"Vor a constitutional amendment for state wide pro-
hibition.

A few days later he and Mr. Davis of Todd county intro-
duced a bill for a constitutional amendment to be voted upon
at the next election.

At the time of its introduction it looked very much as if
such amendment would pass; but when the matter came up
on March 25th on the question of indefinite postponement
only 56 could be found to recommend the bill to pass.



Adams

Anderson

Baker

Bendixen

Bernard

Bjorge

Bjornson

Christianson

Corning

Davis

Dealand

Flinn

Frye

Gill

Gordon

Grant

Guilford

Hauser

Hinds, E. R.



Holmes

Hompe

Hulbert

Indrehus

Johnson, M.

Larimore

Larson

Lattin

Lee

Marwin

Morken

Nordgren

Norton

Olien

Parker

Peterson, A.

Pikop

Pratt

Putnam



Sawyer

Searls

Sorflaten

Southwick

Spooner

Stenvick

Stevens

Swanson

Swenson

Teigen, A. F.

Teigen, L. O.

Thompson, H. O.

Tollefson

Vasaly

Wefald

Weld

Wilson

Wold



Seven who voted against county option voted to submit
this amendment: Baker, Davis, E. R. Hinds, Indrehus, Lari-
more, Sawyer and Swenson.

Thirteen who voted for county option voted "no" on this
question: Bjorklund, Boehmke, Dare, Erikson, Hogenson,
J. T. Johnson, Kneeland, Konzen, Madigan, A. M. Peterson,
Sanborn, A. L. Thompson, Warner.

It was evident that the House was in no mood to pass



The Minnesota Legislature of 1915 57

a state-wide prohibition statute; for only 28 were willing to

give the bill even a chance to be voted on:

Anderson Lee Southwick

Baker Marwin Stenvick

Bernard Morken Stevens

Christianson Nordgren Swanson

Corning Norton Teigen, L. O.

Frye Olien Thompson, H. O.

Grant Peterson, A. Tollefson

Hinds, E. R. Pratt Weld

Hulbert Putnam Wilkins

Johnson, M. Sawyer Wold

Larson Searls

Lattin Sorflaten

Against the Road-side Saloon.

For many years the people of many parts of the state
have been trying to get an act of the legislature that would
prohibit the granting of licenses for the road-side saloons.

These saloons are outside the limits of police regulation
of the cities and villages, and many of them have become the
centers of crime and vice far beyond the imagination of any
who are not familiar with their nightly orgies. Some of them
have also become dens of gambling and prostitution.

In some places these roadhouses are fairly respectable,
if saloons can ever be called respectable; but most of them
are very tough.

Two years ago the House passed a bill by a very large
majority prohibiting these road-side saloons, but the Senate
so amended the bill that the board of county commissioners
might grant a license if the town board should vote in favor,
and the sheriff and county attorney order it.

The bill was lost in conference committee.

In the session of 1915 the temperance committee of the
Senate in the absence of Mr. Vibert, divided evenly on the
same question.

Pauly, Ward, Van Hoven and Hilbert were for the
road houses.

Vermilya, Lobeck, Gandrud and Blomgren were against
them.

The Senate voted . against all road houses forty-one to
twenty-four as follows:

Those who voted in the negative were:
Adams Gillam Peterson, E. P.

Alley Gjerset Peterson, F. H.

Andrews Grose Potter

Benson Hanson Putnam

Blomgren Hegnes Rockne

Bonniwell Holmberg Rustad

Buckler Jackson Rystrom

Campbell, W. A. Jones Sageng

Collester Lende Swenson

Dunn, R. C. Lobeck Turnham

Duxbury Nelson Vermilya

Dwinnell O'Neill Vibert

Gandrud Orr Wallace

Gardner Palmer

Denegre and G. M. Peterson did not vote.



58 The Minnesota Legislature of 1915

Those who voted in the affirmative were:
Baldwin Healy Ries

Callahan Hilbert Steffen

Campbell, A. S. Johnston Sullivan, G. H.

Carley Knopp Sullivan, J. D.

Dunn, W. W. McGarry Van Hoven

Glotzbach Millett Ward

Griggs Nord Weis

Handlan Pauly Westlake

Later, on March 24th, the Senate passed the bill by a
vote of forty-nine to fourteen as follows:

Those who voted in the affirmative were:
Adams Gjerset Peterson, G. M.

Alley Griggs Potter

Andrews Hanson Putnam

Baldwin Hegnes Rockne

Benson Holmberg Rustad

Blomgren Jackson Rystrom

Bonniwell Jones Sageng

Buckler Lende Sullivan, G. H.

Campbell, W. A. Lobeck Swenson

Collester Millett Turnham

Denegre Nelson Vermilya

Dunn, R. C. Nord Vibert

Duxbury O'Neill Wallace

Dwinnell Orr Ward

Gandrud Palmer Weis

Gardner Peterson, E. P.

Gillam Peterson, P. H.

Those who voted in the negative were:
Callahan Hilbert Ries

Carley Johnston Steffen

Dunn, W. W. Knopp Sullivan, J. D.

Grose McGarry Van Hoven

Handlan Pauly

A. S. Campbell, Glotzbach, Healy and Westlake did not
vote.

The house temperance committee, (James Dwyer, chair-
man) held this bill for about twenty days without reporting
it out. This is five days more than the rules permit. Dwyer's
committee was trying to smother the bill.

Saturday morning, April 10, Paul Guilford moved to take
the bill away from the committee.

The opponents of temperance, headed by Girling of Hen-
nepin and McGrath of Ramsey pleaded for time, but the
House passed a resolution by Wefald compelling the com-
mittee to report in one hour.

Then the "wets" moved to recess until 1:30, but when
that time was up they still continued to filibuster by motions
to adjourn, demands for roll call and other methods of delay.
Fred Brown of Ramsey walked out of the house and
could not be found. McGrath objected to any further business
till all who had answered to roll call were in their seats.
Brown was still out of sight. Speaker Flowers ruled with
McGrath and the delay continued. Later he reversed his



The Minnesota Legislature of 1915



59



ruling and the call of the House was dispensed with, seventy-
five to twenty-four.

This is about the way the vote went on all questions.
There were about thirty members absent. The temperance
people had about ten more than enough to pass the bill, but
lacked about ten of a two-thirds majority to suspend the
rules.

It was plain that the temperance people could win in the
end, but the "wets" decided to die hard, and they used up an
entire day in a wholly useless attempt to save the road-side
saloon, the very worst feature of our iniquitous license system.

How They Voted.

The following members voted against suspending the
rules, which was regarded as one of the crucial roll-calls:
Barten, Bessette, Borgen, Bouck, Boyd, Carmichael, Dwyer,
Ferrier, Gerlich, Oilman, Girling, Kuntz, McGrath, McLaugh-
lin, Minnette, Moeller, Nietzel, Nimocks, North, Papke, Pender-
gast, Pless, Ribenack, Rodenberg, Seebach, Schrooten, Scott,
Steen, Welch.

On the final ballot the vote stood ninety-four to ten
as follows:

Those who voted in the affirmative were:



Adams

Anderson

Baldwin

Bendixen

Bernard

Bjorge

Bjorklund

Bjornson

Boehmke

Boyd

Burrows

Carmichael

Christiansen

Condon

Corning

Dare

Davis

Devoid

Dunleavy

Dwyer

Ferrier

Frye

Gill

Girling

Gordon

Grant

Guilford

Harrison, H. H.

Harrison, J. M.

Hauser

Hinds, E. R.

Hynes, J. H.



Hogenson

Holmes

Hompe

Hulbert

Johnson, J. T.

Johnson, M.

Kneeland

Knutson

Konzen

Larimore

Larson

Lattin

Lee

Lydiard

McGrath

McLaughlin

Madigan

Malmberg

Marschalk

Marwin

Moeller

Morken

Mueller

Murphy

Nietzel

Nimocks

Nordgren

North

Norton

Novak

Olien

Parker



Peterson, A.

Peterson, A. M.

Pikop

Pratt

Putnam

Ribenack

Rodenberg

Sanborn

Sawyer

Searls

Schrooten

Sliter

Smith

Sorflaten

Southwick

Stenvick

Stevens

Swanson

Swenson

Teigen, A. F.

Teigen, L. O.

Thompson, H. O.

Tollefson

Vasaly

Warner

Wefald

Welch

Wilson

Wold

Woodfill

Mr. Speaker



Those who voted in the negative were:



The Minnesota Legislature of 1915



Bessette Oilman Scott

Borgen Kuntz Steen

Bouck Minnette

Gerlich Seebacli

Twenty-six did not vote. Of these Dealand, Flinn, Hafften,
Spooner, Stoetzel, Syverson and Weld had been excused for
the day. All the others had answered at roll call in the morn-
ing. Mr. Indrehus had been excused at noon. This left the
following unaccounted for: Baker, Barton, Brown, Erickson,
Greene, Haislet, Lennon, Leonard,. Miner, Nelson, Papke, Pen-
dergast, Pless, Sudheimer, A. L. Thompson, Thornton and
Wilkins.

Only ten stood by the roadhouse to the last.

The So-Called Boxing Bill.

This bill professed to do three things.

First, to encourage clean and legitimate sport by legal-
izing "ten round exhibitions of the manly art of self defense."

Second, to create a state Athletic Commission to supervise
and regulate all such exhibitions.

Third, to turn over ten per cent of the gross proceeds
of these matches to the state to be used in the fight against
the white plague.

But

"Ten round exhibitions of the manly art of self defense"
are not now prohibited by law. The present law in no way
interferes with any such proper sport.

The present law does interfere with any thing in the
way of a prize fight.

The so-called boxing bill, as first drawn and introduced,
did specifically repeal the present law against prize fights,
but this feature was cut out of the bill.

So it would seem that if there is any field at all for its
operation as finally passed, it creates a state commission to
license and regulate "exhibitions" that are now legal and
need no regulation.

Would the law empower the proposed commission to
step in and regulate such exhibitions in Y. M. C. A., or
athletic clubs or physical culture leagues?

If not where would be its field of operations? Any right
and proper "exhibitions" need no license nor regulation.

Prize fights should not be licensed nor regulated nor even
permitted at all.

It looks very much as if the only standing room this
commission could possibly have would be to wedge its way
in between illegal prize fights and perfectly proper
"exhibitions."

It seems plain that the bill was intended to open the
door to "exhibitions" that are not now permitted by law. If
not why were the three sections of the existing law prohibit-
ing prize fights specifically repealed?

The State a Partner.

But no matter what the law as finally passed may do for
the prize fighters, it does put the state into partnership with
whatever exhibitions would be legal and permitted under its
provisions.



The Minnesota Legislature of /fl/.T 61

Is this wise?

Ought the state to interfere with, and place a special tax
upon proper sport?

On the other hand ought the state to legalize and share
in the proceeds of prize fights?

The advocates of this bill must hang themselves on one
or the other horn of this dilemma.

The Methods of Its Promoters.

It was common talk about the capitol that the methods
employed by the promoters of this bill were the most brutal
and scandalous.

One clean and honest member who voted for the bill
declared that he was forced to do so by threats that, if he did
not, none of his bills would be permitted to pass. Several
others admitted substantially the same thing.

Before passing the House the bill was amended as
follows:

First, Corning moved to reduce the appropriation for
the use of the commission from $3,500 to $1,200, and to
increase the percentage of gross receipts for the benefit of the
Tuberculosis Sanitoria from seven to ten per cent.

Second. Davis moved to amend so the law should apply
only to the three large cities.

Third, Madigan moved to strike out the section which
specifically repealed the existing statutes against prize fights.

Moeller and the friends of the bill were so eager to
pass it that they accepted all these amendments.

As it passed the House it did not mean very much, but
it never could have passed in its original form.

Here is the vote on final passage seventy-five to forty-
seven.

Those who voted in' the affirmative were:
Adams Gordon Novak


1 2 3 4 6 8 9 10 11 12 13

Online LibraryC. J. (Carl J.) BuellThe Minnesota Legislature of 1915 → online text (page 6 of 13)