'I

question belSenate and the

H. Y. TorrE

Wright nomi

, Mr. H. Y. TornSenate was declare

Mr. Josefson noArms of the Senat

The question beArms of the Senatators voted for Mr

~ndderson,E. J.BergerAn erson, J. T.BlatzAnderson,W.R. Brown

rnold Burscl~shbach Calero:

enson Conzel

[1ST DAYJOURNAL OF THE SENATE

Nineteenth District John L. OlsonTwentieth District , J. A. J osefsonTwenty-first District Howard I. NelsonTwenty-second District Dr. Vernon K. JensenTwenty-third District Robert G. JohnsonTwenty-fourth District C. J. BensonTwenty-fifth District George E. GrantTwenty-sixth District Henry M. HarrenTwenty-seventh District .. Jerome V. BlatzTwenty-eighth District W. G. KirchnerTwenty-ninth District Ali BergerudThirtieth District Kenneth WolfeThirty-first District Eugene F .Welter

Mr. Welter answered the roll call of the Senate.

At this point the President stated that, the secretary has yourcertificate of election which appears to be in proper form. How­ever, we have formal notice that your seat is challenged underChapter 209 proceedings. Do you care to state your position on

that?Mr. Welter: Mr. President, I do not concede this is ground for

the challenge, and I would like the body to hear the matter assoon as possible so that my right to the seat, according to thevotes of my constituency, can be determined.

President: I am informed that the Elections and Reapportion­ment Committee to which the challenge ordinarily would be re-ferred will meet presently.

Mr. Welter: Mr. President, in that event, I prefer to stand asideuntil the challenge can be heard and disposed of.

The Secretary pro tern then continued with the roll call:

Thirty-second District Dean A. NyquistThirty-third District Henry T. McKnightThirty-fourth District Melvin E. HansenThirty-fifth District Wayne G. pophamThirty-sixth District Glenn D. McCartyThirty-seventh District Harmon T. OgdahlThirty-eighth District Donald O. WrightThirty-ninth District Leo D. MosierFortieth District Harold KalinaForty-first District Roy W. HolstenForty-second District John T. DaviesForty-third District Karl F. GrittnerForty-fourth District Wendell R. AndersonForty-fifth District . ' Edward G. NovakForty-sixth District Nicholas D. ColemanForty-seventh District Clifton ParksForty-eighth District John Tracy AndersonForty-ninth District Robert O. AshbachFiftieth District Jerome M. HughesFifty-first District Keith F. Hughes~ifty-secondDistrict Norman W. Hanson

152

Quorum present.

The reading of the Journal was dispensed with and the Journal,as printed and corrected, was approved.

Re: 3I

tand froJMonday

nscript he I will ha

Senator Holm,

to confirmf::":iena1t;e Election

January 11tMinnesota.

>"'''''!JI.Vl.l:lIl1~ H. Y. Tc~e(lre:t::ll"V of Senate

CapitolMinnesota

PophamRosenmeierSinclairSommerSundetUkkelbergWanvickWright

LaufenburgerLeisethMammengaMcCartyMcKnightMetcalfMosierNovakOlsonParksPerpich, A. J.Perpich, Rudy

JOURNAL OF THE SENATE

Anderson, E. J.Dosland HolstenAnderson, J. T.Franz Hughes, J. M.Anderson,W.R.Gage Jensen, V. K.Arnold Glewwe JohnsonAshbach Greig J osefsonBenson Grittner JudeBlatz Hansen, C. R. KalinaBrown Hanson, N. W. KirchnerBursch Hanson, R. KriegerColeman Harren LaBrosseConzemius Higgins Larson, L. W.Davies Holmquist Larson, N.

180

PETITIQNS, LETTERS AND REMONSTRANCES

Minneapolis, Minn., January 5, 1967I-Ionorable Stanley W. HolmquistMajority LeaderMinnesota State SenateState CapitolSt. Paul, Minnesota

Re: 31st Senatorial District ContestDear Senator Holmquist:

I want to officially advise you that a contest exists for the sen­ate seat in the 31st District. Richard J. Parish is the contestant.

MEMBERS EXCUSED

Messrs. Jensen, C. A., Hughes, K., Nelson and Popp were ex­cused from the session of today.

Mr. Popp was excused from the session of tomorrow.

FOURTH DAY

St. Paul, Monday, January 9,

The Senate met at 8:00 o'clock p.m., and was called toby the President, pro-tern., Mr. Anderson, E. J.

Prayer by the Chaplain.The roll being called, the following Senators answered to their

names:

Mr. Richard J. Parish3826 West BroadwayMinneapolis, Minnesota

Mr. Arthur J. StockSoo Line BuildingMinneapolis, Minnesota

181

Yours truly,Wyman Smith

Your truly,Wyman SmithAttorney for Parish

Minneapolis, Minn., January 6, 1967

MONDAY, JANUARY 9,1967

Dear Senator Holmquist:I want to confirm that the hearing of this matter will be before

the Senate Elections and Reapportionment Committee on Wed­January 11th at 3:00 o'clock p.m., Room 28, State Capitol,Minnesota.

Honorable Stanley W. HolmquistMajority LeaderMinnesota State Senate

CapitolSt. Paul, Minnesota 55101

Re: 31st Senatorial District ContestParish vs. Welter

Honorable H. Y. TorreySecretary of SenateState CapitolSt. Paul, Minnesota

..L"''-'.L.LU'.La.IV~C; H. Y. Torreyl::'jelcretaI~V of Senate

CapitolSt.·Paul, Minnesota

I send you a copy of the Request I made in his behalf to forwardthe record and transcript to the Minnesota State Senate. I guessthe Request should have been directed to your attention asMajority Leader when in fact the request was directed to the newLieutenant Governor.

I understand from Senator Parish that the matter will be con­sidered on Monday, January 9, 1967, at 3:30 o'clock p. m.

The transcript has not as yet been delivered to my office butI presume I will have it on Friday.

Senator Parish and I appreciate your courtesies in this matter.If. you know of something further that I should be doing pro­cedurally, please advise.

4TH DAY]

the Journal,

PophamRosenmeierSinclairSommerSundetUkkelbergWanvickWright

[4TH DAY

ES

uary 5, 1967

mary 9, 1967.3.11ed to order

'OW.

for the sen­~ contestant.

vered to their

)PP were ex-

OPINION

EXECUTIVE AND OFFICIAL COMMUNICATIONS

January 6, 1967.

Messrs. HoIrr

S. F. No. 13:constitution ofviding that thlwith party des

Which was rEJudiciary.

Messrs. Pellduced-

S. F. No. 14:for payment ofMinnesota Staand Chapter 34

Which was l'Game and Fish

Messrs. HoIrr

S. F. No. 12:from the incomE

Which was rEEducation.

Messrs. HoIr

S. F. No. If

4TH DAY]

ed. Therefore, elegislature may 1

2. Minn. Con~

"*** and nexcept on the30 days of sue

Excluding SUlin either House,day, April 17, H

3. Minn. Con~

"No bill sbupon the dahouses."

Therefore, thSaturday, May:

[4TH DAYJOURNAL OF THE SENATE182

Honorable Stanley W. HolmquistChairman, Committee on Rules and Legislative ExpenseState Capitol

Mr. Richard J. Parish3826 West BroadwayMinneapolis, Minnesota

Mr. Arthur J. StockSoo Line BuildingMinneapolis, Minnesota

Honorable Harold R. Popp237 State CapitolSt. Paul, Minnesota

The following report was received and filed by the Secretary ofthe Senate: Proposed Recodification of Minnesota Insurance Stat­utes prepared by the Subcommittee on Recodification of Insur­ance Laws.

The following reports were received and filed by the Secretaryof the Senate and a copy placed on the desk of each member:Department of Labor and Industry Industrial Commission of Min­nesota, Biennial Report, July 1, 19.64 through June 30, 1966;Commissioner of Education on the Minnesota State High SchoolLeague.

Dear Senator Holmquist:

.Your letter of January 5, 1967 relating to the current session ofthe Minnesota State Legislature requests my opinion on the fol-lowing .

QUESTIONS:

"1) What is the last day on which the legislature may be insession?

"2) What is the last day on which new bills may be introducedin either House?

"3) What is the last day on which bills may be passed by eitherHouse?"

1. The Constitution, Art. IV, Sec. 1, limits the regular session ofthe legislature to 120 days. Minnesota Statutes, Section 3.01 statesthat the legislature shall assemble on the first Tuesday after thefir~t Monday in January of each odd-numbered year, and accord­ingly, the legislative session began on January 3, 1967.

The basis for computing the 120 day period is to count all daysupon which the legislature could legally sit and to exclude Sundays.Pursuant to Laws 1959, Chapter 52, holidays are no longer exclud-

THDAY]

;y, and to

.mittee on

.nishment;Ir.

[lmittee on

setting thelomesteadstutes 1965,tutes 1965,

mmittee on

rnent to theoters of any~; amending

:>mmittee on

.djourn until

)f the Senate.

Which was read the first time and referred to the Committeeon Finance.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

Messrs. Sinclair, Holmquist and Krieger introduc~d-

S.F. No. 21: A bill for an act appropriating money to pay thesalary of A. M. Keith, lieutenant governor, for the 1966 extrasession. 1 -

Messrs. McKnight, Hughes, K. and Ukkelberg introduced~

S. F. No. 22: A bill for an act relating to highway traffic regula­tions; retlucing blood alcohol limits in regard to the presumptionof driving under the influence of an alcoholic beverage; changingcertain other provisions relating to blood alcohol tests; amendingMinnesota Statutes 1965, Section 169.121, Subdivision 2.

Which was read the first time and referred to the Committeeon Judiciary. '

WEDNJ

Messrs. Krieger, Larse

S. F. No. 24: A billcertain state owned Iantrict number 4 of Roche~

Which was read theDomain.

"'U.\.,U"'.I."'. Davies, Krieg

F. No. 25: A bill felection day.

Which was read theLocal Government.

..,.J.V';:'.::l.1.0. Ogdahl, Gritt

No. 27: A billAssociation

Subdivisie35:

",u.'I:;;o.::a.o. Dosland and'

No. 26: A bill fcarnleneurlg MinneE

;:;ec·tlon 354.

Messrs. McKnight, H'

S. F. No. 23: A bill fotion; modifying provisiOlhearings incident to refMinnesota Statutes 196and 8.

Which was read theon Judiciary.

6TH DAY][6TH DAYJOURNAL OF THE SENATE

Judicial District, Hennepin County, Minnesota, the original fileconsisting of:

1-Notice of Contest of Election filed 11-22-66

1-Petition to Inspect Ballots1-Ex-Parte Order for Leave to Take Deposition and Notice of

Taking Deposition1-0rder Appointing Inspectors1-0ath of Inspectors1-Notice of Hearing1-Answer and Additional Points not, Specified in Notice of

Contest1-Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order filed 12-21-66

1-Answers to Contestee's Interrogatories1-Reply to Answer of Contestee and his Additional Points not

Specified in Notice of Contest1-Request of Clerk of District Court to Forward Record and

Transcript of Proceedings

1-Report of Inspectors

1-Notice of Taking Deposition1-Contestee's Interrogatories and Requests for Admissions

from Contestant3-Subpoenas with affidavits of service attached

2-Receipts for Exhibits filed 1-4-671-Transcript filed 1-10-67 in the above entitled cause was

received and delivered to Senator Harold R. Popp, Chairman,Senate Elections Committee, State Capitol on January 11, 1967.

188

288 ~~9TH DA,Y;DAY] MONDP

J\,1r. Bopp, froW: t~e, Comwitt~e on ~l~ctio;n~ and. ~,eappo;rtiQJ;l­Dt~l).t, to Whiyh w~s, referred thE( :r:na~Wl! of tht3contes,"t of 'the elec­tWA of Eugene F. Welter '0 the office o~ s.eJ;lat9l; fro;m the Thirty­n,rst 1Jegislative ni~trict of th~ St~~e Qf J\1il1nespta,' reports~

Th:e lI?-atter so. referred, was yonsi<;{ered, by the cOIPfi?ittee and, bya sub-comm~ttee or t~e committee. The sub":cQmmittee, after study,made its report to the col11mittee by' a majority thereof, finding ineffect that Mr. Welter is eligible to be seated' as senator' for thedistrict for which he holds a certificate. of ele(}tip~!

Tne c{)~u.nittee 01). Elections and R,eapporti{)nmel!t ~dopted thereport of this sub-committee and thFlt relJOl't is appended as a partof this report. A minority of the sup-.Y01p;m~tte~nas made separatereports which are also appended to this report for the informationof the Senate.

NOW, THEREFORE, the committee on Elections and Reap­portionWenj{ to) ~hiyh, the 11?:~.tter.was. so, re~erred ;repol;'ts. the S;llneback with the recommendation that the Senate find M1" Weltereligible to be seated as a senator from the Thirty-first rHstrict andthat he be seated.

TO THE HONORABLE HAROLD POPP, CHA1RMAN OF THECQ:M;MI'I;TEE ON: EI;.ECTIONS A,NDREAPl?OBTIONMENT:

The subcommittee appointed to consider the evidence and ap­plic~ble law in, th~matte;r of the eligibility of Mr. Eugene F. Welter,who holds a certificate of election' to assume the seat of senator forthe Thirty-first Legislative District, reports- '

1. The. suQyommittee. ~grees that a. contest of this kind shouldbe governed by these principles: . ...

Di,squ~lificat.io}1under tl:1e COfl'Upt PraGtices Act of onewho holds a certificate. of election shpuld occur only onproof of a deliberate, serious, and m.aterial violation ofthe Minnesota Election Law.

A candidate for the office of senator in the Legi~latureshould not be permitted to disclaim responsibility for theconduct of a volunteer election committee which if com­mitted by him. would be. a ground of disqualification with­out showing that the. conduct was witho~t his knowledgeand such that he should, not reaaonably have been ex­:pected to anti~ipate it, or if l}n()~v:Iedgecame after occur­reirce that' he made quick' disavowaJ rif in ·f3.iriies~ dis-avowal was called for. . .. ' .

Misr:~pr~§ell,-t.::lt~m]. dlJt':ing.~: call1P~j~l}l bly· ~!1! opponf(nt orby one authOrIzed to speak for him of an in'cumbel1t'sv:oting record. should be scrutinized with. special vigor andmay be in its,elf' a ground of disqualificatioh :if the misrep­resentation w~s made witR-, knowledge. ot tpe 'person inwhose behalf It was made, or if made without his knowl:­~dge was not promptly disavowed after· knowledge, andmisrepresentElJion in this SenSe ip.dud~s an ~nf~il' inter­pretation. of the record or mislea'ding inGompl€;1t~1).(3sS as

well as literal inaccur~tion it must be shownate and calculatedly u

An assertion of inculY.campaign publicity bground of disqualificlserious and deliberatE

The subcommittee athe charge that C(

used to solicit fundsand the charge thaia personal campaig:

of expenditure, arE

Mr.H:"'Tnl-l.n".,,~.n ,.,,,,.... ,.,, .. ,..'" th

mi~~rel)tel~entationof the.... ..,.; .... ,.,~..-.I'" above state

CmnpaIgn publicit~dC!C!ol"t-inn of incum

Benson disl

Parish ellsenator, 0

in fa(~nt:ltl€!d to claim'

31st C

well as literalinaccuracy, but asa ground of disqualifica­tion it must be shown that misrepresentation was deliber­ate and calculatedly unfavorable to the incumbent.

An assertion of incumbency, express or cle~rly implied, incampaign publicity by one not an incumbent may be aground of disqualification if the assertion is found to beserious and deliberate.

2. The subcommittee agrees also that in the matter sublIlitted touS that the charge that corporate property, person.n.el, and serviceswere used to solicit funds in Mr. Welter's behalf in violation of thelaw, and the charge that the ,Welter volunteer committee was infact a personal campaign committee which exceeded permi'ssiblelimits of expenditure, are not supported by the evidence.

3. Mr. Ogdahl, Mr. Hansen, and Mr. Rosenmeier after review ofthe evidence conclude that the contestant ha.s not shown there wasmisrepresentation of the voting record of Mr. Parish in violation ofthe principle above stated and tha.t he has not shown that Mr. Wel­ter's' campaign publicity carried a deliberate, express, or impliedfalse assertion of incumbency. With these conclusions Mr. Ander­SOll and Mr. Benson disagree a.nd theY make a separate report.

I t is the recommendation of the under$igned, a majority of thesubcommittee, that your committee recommend to the Senate thatMr. Welter be seated as the senator from the Thirty-first District.

(Signed) Messrs. Rosenmeier, Ogdahl and Hansen, Mel.

MINORITY REPORT OF SENATOR C. J. BENSONTO: SENATE ELECTIONS & REAPPORTIONMENTCOMMITTEE

The contestant, Richard J. Parish, submitted four separateclaims on charges of violation of the Corrupt Practices Act. Thefour issues' are:

(1) Mr. Parish claims that Eugene Welter falsely" clailned tobe a sta.te senator, or to be the incumbent senator for the 31stdistrict, when., in, fact, the contestant" Richard J. Parish, alonewas entitled to claim incumben.cy and to claim to be the incumbentsenator in the 31st district.

(2) Mr. Parish claimed that Mr. Welter had falsely stated thath~,Richard J. Parish, had voted in opposition to the reorganiza~tion of the Department of Conservation.

(3) The third claim was that Mr. Welter so loosely managedan~ directed his campaign that his, agents used corporate prop­erty, "personnel and services to solicit funds in his behalf, all inflagrant violation of the la.w.

,(4) Mr. Parish claimed that the voluntee'r committee of Mr.Weltersperit at least twice as much as. allowed by statute. In

I effect, it was the claim of Mr. Parish that the Welter for SenatorVolunteer Committee wa.s a personal cdmpaign committee ofEugene Welter and was not a volunteer committee within themeaning of the statutes.

289MONDAY, JANUARY 30, 196719TH DAY]

l1S and Reap­10:rtS, the samed l rvI1\ Welter,t District and

is kind should

G adopted thel~ed 8;S a partn~de sepllrate,e information

£AN'OF,THE~IQNMENT:

fence and ap­:ene F. Welter,;OJ' sen~tor for

~ct of onelr' only onolation of

~19THDA,~

Jeg~§l~tur~ity for thech if com­ltionwith­knowledge~, been ex~fter, occur­irn.es~' dis-

?POl1.(~nt orlcumbent'sl vigor andhe misrep­. person inhis knowl­ledge, and~f}.:\ir, ipter­l~t~l}~ElS a.,s

?,eapportiQ1;1­,t of 'the elec­n, th~ Thirty­~po~ts--

q.ittee and, by~, after study,~of, finding ir1nator' for the

MONDAY,J

Clearly Mr. Welter was I

to convey the impression tlSenator. In large bold type,~-"Welter-State Senator.were prominently displayed:

"Elect ..

"EugEYour

(~

MINORITY REPORT

We the undersigned, memtand Reapportionment, to whi<of State Senator Richard J.Minority Report, do hereby rommendation that the report I

conclude after a carefu~, objlEugene F. Welter was In facmaterial violations of the prPractices Act, and thereforeof the Minnesota State Sena1

In campaign publicity, Eugand by implication that he.Minnesota State Senate. Thllcampaign.

Strip ads in local newspap"Gene Welter-State Senato:

On November 3, 1966, justWelter caused to be publisheca full one-half page ad whicthe words:

It is obvioU:s that this ad, :exhibits 5, 8" 14, 29c and 3signed to convey the erronecan incumbent state senator.

It is conceded that the adin fact published. Mr. Weltthe ad of November 3, 19,"Your" at the top of the ad

A deposition was takenthe NORTH HENNEPINWelter was present. Mr. Mceived a copy and prepa~dquote from page 39 of sal

You

19TH DAY][l~THDAYJOURNAL OF THE SENATE290

(Signed) Mr. Benson, C.

I considered each of the four charges carefully. I read the trans­cript and depositions. I do not feel there has been sufficient evi­dence shown to this committee to sustain any of the last threecharges and I would, therefore conclude that contestant, RichardJ. Parish, has not established any violation of the Corrupt Prac­tices Act as to the issues set out in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4.

I am, however, concerned with the evidence presented to thiscommittee through the transcript, the depositions and the exhibitsas to the first alleged charge of violation of the Corrupt Prac­tices Act.

It is my feeling that Mr. Welter, through his advertisements asshown on Exhibits 13, 14, 29C, 5 and 8, claimed to be the incum-.bent senator or sought to leave this impression with those whoread these ads. It will be recalled that in all of these ads theheading and heavy type read, "Welter-State Senator" and inthe ad under date of November 3, 1966 the following languagewas used, "Eugene F. Welter, Your 31st District Senator." Ifthere had been only one, or even two of these ads, we nlight beable to say that an error had been made by the candidate or thatthe candidate had used poor judgment. Here, however, we havebefore this committee at least five separate exhibits, in everyoneof which it is sought to leave the impression with the voter thatMr. Welter at that time was senator. Here we have a systematicseries of advertisements, each of which seeks to leave the impres­sion that the candidate was at that time the senator.

While I would not be in favor of having the committee findMr. Welter guilty of a violation of the Corrupt Practices Act, forthe reason that I would not desire to see this charge laid at hisdoor, nor the stigma of this charge placed against him, where itcould always haunt him. I do feel, however, that he was unethi­cal in his advertising and he would be guilty of what the lawyersand the Bar Association would call "sharp practices" at the veryleast. Under the Minnesota Constitution, Article 4, Subdivision3, it is provided that each house shall be the judge of the electionreturns and the eligibility of its own members. It is my feelingthat the Senate has a right to determine not only the questionof who won the election but who is eligible as well and it is myfeeling that Mr. Welter should be declared ineligible and a newelection· held. If this were done, each candidate could go into thecampaign free of any charges of a violation of the Corrupt Prac­tices Act, and in,this way neither candidate would have an ad­vantage over the other.

I would like to join in the Majority Report, but I do not feelI can in good conscience do this. My thinking is in no way influ­enced by the political allegiance of either party to this contest.I feel here we have a serious question, and I feel the Senate issetting a bad precedent if we condone this type of advertising andthe statements ~ade by Mr. Welter in his campaign because theywere material, they were serious and deliberate misrepresentations.

"Eugene F. WelterYour 31st District

Senator."

"Elect 'Gene'Welter

Your 31st DistrictSenator"

291MONDAY, JANUARY 30,1967

It is obvious that this ad, and other similar ads, (see contestants'exhibits 5, 8, 14, 29c and 37) were carefully and deliberately de­signed to convey the erroneous impression that Eugene Welter wasan incumbent state senator.

It is conceded that the ads and letterheads described above werein fact published. Mr. Welter accepts full responsibilty except forthe ad of November 3, 1966, where he contends that the word"Your" at the top of the ad was substituted for the word "for."

. A deposition was taken from Robert Moksnes, an employee ofthe NORTH HENNEPIN POST, at which time counsel for Mr.Welter was present. Mr. Moksnes testified under oath that he re­ceived a copy and prepared the layouts for Mr. Welter's ad. Wequote from page 39 of said deposition as follows:

MINORITY REPORTWe, the undersigned, members of the Committee on Elections

and Reapportionment, to which was referred the election contestof State Senator Richard J. Parish vs. Eugene F. Welter, as aMinority Report, do hereby report the same back, with the rec­ommendation that the report of the Majority be disapproved, andconclude after a careful, objective review of the evidence thatEugene F. Welter was in fact guilty of deliberate, serious, andmaterial violations of the provisions of the Minnesota CorruptPractices Act, and therefore should not be seated as a memberof the Minnesota State Senate.

In campaign publicity, Eugene F. Welter asserted both directlyand by implication that he was an incumbent member of theMinnesota State Senate. This, in fact, was a major theme of hiscampaign.

Strip ads in local newspapers, and letterheads, both indicated"Gene Welter-State Senator."

On November 3, 1966, just five days before the election, EugeneWelter caused to be published in the NORTH HENNEPIN PO$Ta full one-half page ad which prominently displayed at the topthe words:

Clearly Mr. Welter was deliberately and intentionally tryingto convey the impression that he was the present 31st DistrictSenator. In large bold type bordering this ad were the words again-"Welter-State Senator." At the bottom, the following wordswere prominently displayed:

19TH DAY]

vertisements asI be the incum­vith those whothese ads the

3nator" and in)wing language~t Senator." Ifs, we might bendidate or thatNever, we have;s, in everyonethe voter that

re a systematiclve the impres­ltor.

esented to thismd the exhibitsCorrupt Prac-

committee findactices Act, forlrge laid at his; him, where ithe was unethi­lat the lawyers3S" at the very4, Subdivisionof the election

G is my feelingy the questionII and it is myble and a newllid go into theCorrupt. Prac­

ld have an ad-

read the trans­1 sufficient evi­: the last three3stant, RichardCorrupt Prac­3 and 4.

[1QTHDAY

t I do not feel1 no way influ­o this contest.

the Senate isldvertising andn because theyepresentations.

Mr. Benson, C.

292 JOURNAL OF THE SENATE [19TH DAY 19THDAYJ, MON]

(SignE

"Q To the best of your knowledge, the ad that you see here inthis newspaper for November 3rd is the way it was presentedto you?

A To the best of my knowledge.

Q Do you recall who brought the ads in from time to time thatyou inserted?

A Mr. Welter."

III the case of Bank v. Egan, 240 Minn. 192, 60 N. W. 2d 257(1953) involving an action brought by a defeated candidate tovoid an election for alleged violations of the Corrupt PracticesStatute, the alleged violations, dealt with two cartoons or drawingswith statements relating to each underneath them.- Contestant al­leged that these cartoons and statements violated M. S; A. 211.08concerning false statements. The Court then defines the meaning ofthe word knowingly and states at page 259 as follows:

"It is obvious that when it is shown that a statement waspublished or caused to be published by a candidate itmust follow that it was knoWingly done. ·Use of the word'knowingly' in conne'ctioli with the publication or a.ct ofcausing a, statement to be published would be entirelyunnecessary. The act of publishing or causing to be pub­lished in itself presupposes knowledge of the act."

One of the governing principles esta.blished by the Majority inits Report is: "An assertion of incumbency expressed or clearlyimplied, in campaign publicity by one not an incumbent may be aground of disqualification if the assertion is found to be serious anddeliberate.',

We believe that when the foregoing principle is objectively ap­plied to the'facts cited and to the law as stated in the case of Bankv. Egan, supra, it is clearly established that the principle and thelaw were knowingly violated by Mr. Welter in a serious, deliberate,and material manner.

Further evidence of Mr. Welter's deceptive practices was his mis­leading use of Senator Parish's voting record.

Candidate Welter widely distributed two separate campaign let­ters (See cOlitestants' exhibits 8 and 17) in which they erroneouslyclaimed: to report "the authentic recording of 'Richard's-Record,'"as follows:

Bill Purpose Parish VotedS. F. 748 Reorganization of Conservation Dept. l'.Jo

Mr. Welter's claim that he "reasonably relied upon the research"furnished by George G. Goodwin, an 'employee of the MinnesotaState Senate, is not a valid defense in view, not only of Mr. Good­win's expert knowledge of the workings of the Senate, but also inview of Mr. Welter's sworn statement, taken from page 166, lines17-22, of tHe transcript:

"Q Had you been advised that unless you were familiar withthat (the Seriate Journal) you should use a person with some

~x;pertise or knoVicerned?

AYes, at the traininpaign, we were VEsubject."

The subcommittee's tilciple established that".an unfair interpretation I

as well as literal inaGcuraIt is apparent that Mr,

deception, all:d tha~ he12;:l.i'gl1, a:o.d dId dehbera­Minne~Qta Corrupt Pra<

The att~mpt to win a lmisrepresentation a:o.d dlon the :Legisla~ur:e.To p:misconduct W0tl.1d not cMiljority, but a wjtherirpart of those who haVEleadership.

At a time when the rEil1~ aJ;l e\;en, m~re. impocqWlllJlnity, it IS uresp(p,a.ign GqndJ.lot tha~. eye);s~~rn to permit tWIStIng

Accordingly, w~ resp'position of th~ MI~OrIt:take his seat In thIS hOI

tion campaign.

Popp mov~d thaing of the for~gOlng MMotion prevaIled.

then movi...""..... " ...' ... d nertainlng to el

~m·n+anin the Jour1\-/1 .....+,n.n prevailel

forfo]

permanent rulEas follows:

PERMJU

The rules of IJManual. shall ~(

atrplI~cat)1e, and III

PERMANENT RULES OF THE SENATE

JEJrJrERSON'S ~A~'UAL

1. The rules of parliamelltary p.ract~ce comprised in Jeffer­son's Manual shall govern the Senate in all: cases in which theyare applicable, and in which t4ey- aJ'~ not· ip.QQl1sistent. with these

29.3,

(Signed) Messrs. Anderson, W. R., Perpich, R. G.,Coleman, Conzemuis and Jensen, V. K~

Mr. Popp moved that the Secretary dispense with further read­ing of the foregoing Majority report and Minority reports. WhichMotion prevailed.

Mr. Popp then moved that the Majority Repor~ andJ Minorityreports pertaining to election contest of'Mr. Welter and Mrr. Parishbe' printed in the Journal of the Senate and be laid· on the table.Which Motion prevailed"

Mr. I-Iolmquist, for the Committee on Rules and LegislativeExpense, made the following report:

The permanent rules of the Senate for the 1967 session shallread as follows:

~~p~rtise or knowleQcge insofar as voting records are CQ)1"cerned? .

AYes, at the training session for candidates, early in the cam­paign, we were vellY care~uny qautioned in regard to thissubject."

The subcommittee's final vote seems incorppatible with the prin.,ciple established that "... misrepresentation in this sense includesan unfair interpretation of the record or misleading incompletenessas well as literal ina.cclJ.racy..."

It is apparent that Mr. Welter embarked 01;1 ac()urseof deliberatedeception, and that he pursued this course throughout the cam­paign, and did deli1>~ra.'tely, seriously, and materiallY- violate theMinnes.ota Corrupt Practices Statutes·

The attempt to win a seat in, the Minnesota State Senate throughmisrepresenta.tion a)1d dec~ption brings dishonor on the.Senate andon the lLegislatur:e~To Permit a person to a,ssulTIe a. seat· a~ter suchmi~conduct W0111d not only be an abU.se of power b)7 those in. theMajority, but a wnhering away of the stand,a,rds of conduct on thepart of those who have' the moral responsibility that goes withleadership.

At a time when the responsibilities of the Legislature are assum­in~ a)1 even, more importa,;nt role in the day t,o da,.y affairs. of thec()illllll1nity, it is irresponsible to furt4~r: el,'o,Clec sta.pdarCls of, can1­pai.gn C9nguot that. eV;e.l1' now Seem none· too high, and tha,t a~r:eadYseem, to permit twisti11-g a,)1<1 distorting. .

Accordingly, we respectfully urge the, adoption of the substituteposition of the Minority that Eugene F. Welter is not qualified totake his seat in this body by reason of his actions during the elec-tion campaign.

19THDAXJ,

objectively ap­he case of Bankdnciple and theious, deliberate,

ces was his mis-

;e campaign let­hey erroneouslyaid's' Record,' '"

Parish Voted~pt. :N'o

m the research"the Minnesota

ly of Mr. Good­ate, but also inpage 166, lines

~ N. W. 2d 257~d candidate toIrrupt Practicesons or drawings~ Contestant al­M. S; A. 211.08; the meaning of/Vs:

.me to time that

you see here init was presented

[19TH DAY

'e familiar with~l'son with some

the Majority in~ssed or clearlynbent may be aD be serious and

tem.ent wasandidate it)f the wordn or a.ct ofbe entirelyto be pub­ct."

Reports the same back with the recommendation that the billbe re-referred to the Committee on Judiciary. Report adopted.

SECOND READING OF SENATE BILLS

S. F. Nos. 82, 283, 290, 302 and 315 were read the second time.

335WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 1,1967

MOTIONS AND RESOLUTIONS

MI'. Larson, Norman, introducerl-

Senate Resolution No.2.

A Senate Resolution authorizing the President of the Senate tosend seven members thereof to attend the Red River Valley WinterShows and Northwest School Farmers' Week at Crookston, Min­nesota.

vVhereas, the Red River Valley Winter Shows and NorthwestSchool Farmers' week are being held at Crookston, Minnesota; and

Whereas, B. E. Youngquist, President of the Red River ValleyWinter Shows Board of Managers, Itlc., has extended an invitationto the Senate to send a delegation of six members and the Presi­dent of the Senate to attend these shows on Thursday, February23, 1967, which has been designated as "Legislators' Day"; now,therefore,

Be It Resolved by the Senate of the State of Minnesota, that thePresident of the Senate be authorized to appoint a committee ofseven members, including himself, to attend said shows; and

Be It Further Resolved that the actual expenses of said commit­tee in making this trip shall be authorized and paid out of theLegislative Expense Fund. The Secretary of the Senate is herebyauthorized and directed to issue warrants in payment of such ex­penses.

Which Resolution was referred to the Committee on Rules andLegislative Expense.

Mr. Olson moved that S. F. No. 129 No. 16 on General Ordersbe re-referred to the Committee on Finance. Which Motion pre­vailed.

Mr. Popp moved that the Committee report from the CommitteeoJ} Elections and Reapportionment, pertaining to the ElectionContest of Mr. Welter and Mr. Parish, as it appears in the SenateJournal of the 19th day, be taken from the table. Which Motionprevailed.

Mr. Popp then moved that the Committee report from the Com­mittee on Elections & Reapportionment pertaining to the ElectionContest of Mr. Welter and Mr. Parish, be now adopted, and thatMr. Welter be seated as a member of the Minnesota State Senatefrom the thirty-first district.

Mr. Anderson, W. R. moved that the Minority report containedin the foregoing Committee report from the Committee on Elec-

21ST DAY]

on that the bill

:on that the bill

elfare, to "vhich

cation by appli­utes 1965, Sec-

fication by appli­a Statutes 1965,Minnesota 1965,

llblic Highways,

Telfare, to which

'elfare, to which

toxicating liquormending Minne­6.

ion that the bill

:vers licenses; re­) operate motor~ction 171.041.

bion that the bill

Public Highways,

remperance and

highway trafficSection 169.14,

[21ST DAY

:ion that the bill

ication by appli­tutes 1965, Sec-

OATH OF OFFICE

Mr. W~lter, escorted by Messrs. Leiseth and Johnson, advancedto the Bar of the Senate, where he subscribed to the oath of officeas administered by the President of the Senate.

WEDNESI

Mr. Holmquist moved t11:00 o'clock a.m. tomorro,-,

Perpich, A. J.Perpich, RudyPophamPoppRosenmeierSinclairSommerSundetUkkelbergWanvickWolfeWright

RosenmeierSinclairSommerSundetUkkelbergWolfeWright

Perpich, A. J.Perpich, RudyWanvick

JOURNAL OF THE SENATE336

CALL OF THE SENATE

Mr. Grittner moved a call of the' Senate. The roll being called,the following Senators answered to their names: .Anderson, E. J. Dosland Holmquist Larson, N.Anderson, J. T. Franz Holsten LeisethAnderson,W.R. Gage Hughes, J. M. MammengaArnold Glewwe Hughes, Keith McCartyAshbach Grant Jensen, V. K. McKnightBenson Greig Johnson MetcalfBergerud Grittner J osefson MosierBlatz Hansen, C. R. Jude NelsonBrown Hansen, Mel Kalina NovakBursch Hanson, N. W. Kirchner NyquistColeman Hanson, R. 'Krieger OgdahlConzemius Harren LaBrosse OlsonDavies Higgins Larson, L. W. Parks

tions and Reapportionment, be substituted for the MajorityThe President of the Senate ruled that the Motion was not in

Mr. Grittner moved that the Senate do now recess, subjectthe call of the President of the Senate. Which Motion did notprevail.

CALL LIFTED

Mr. Grittner moved that further proceedings under the Call ofthe Senate be dispensed with, and the Sergeant-at-Arms be in­structed to bring in the absent members. Which Motion prevailed.

The question then recurred on the adoption of the Motipn asmade by Mr. Popp.

And the roll being called, there were yeas 43, and nays 20, asfollows:

Those who voted in the affirmative were:Anderson, E. J. Gage Hughes, Keith McKnightAnderson, J. T. Glewwe Johnson MetcalfAshbach Greig J osefson NelsonBergerud Hansen, Mel iKirchner NyquistBlatz Hanson, R. IKrieger OgdahlBrown Harren Larson, L. W. OlsonBursch Higgins Larson, N. ParksDosland Holmquist Leiseth PophamFranz Holsten McCarty Popp

Those who voted in the negative were:Anderson,V\TJR. Conzemius Hanson, N. W. KalinaArnold Davies Hughes, J. M. MammengaBenson Grittner Jensen, V. K. MosierColeman Hansen, C. R. Jude Novak

Which Motion prevailed. Which Majority report was adopted.

JOURNAL

OF THE

SENATE·SIXTY· FIFTH SESSION

OF THE

LEGISLATURE

STATE OF MINNESOTA

1967

Webb publishing Co.St. Paul

~6