Category Archives: Law

Beaver Baby Grand Crystal Set, 1924

BeaverBabyGrandCrystalSet

Presumably, by 1924, most readers of Popular Radio magazine already owned a radio receiver, and judging from the articles and ads in the December 1924 issue, most of those readers already owned a set with one or more tubes.

This probably presented a marketing challenge for the Beaver Machine & Tool Co. of Newark, N.J., maker of, among other things, crystal sets. Since it was the Christmas season, the crystal set was promoted as a gift item. The company advertised its “Baby Grand” crystal set as a way to “spread X’mas joy by giving these efficient little sets to friends less fortunate than yourself.” The ad assured that the set was “not a junky toy, but a handsomely built instrument” that was ideal for invalids or youngsters. It reported that the set would give satisfactory reception up to 25 miles.

The set was available in a handsome gift box, with headphones, for $6. The set by itself, without headphones, sold for $3.40.

From the number of surviving examples, it appears that the radio indeed not a junky toy. Quite a few specimens can be found through a Google Images search.

The Beaver Machine & Tool Co. does not appear to survive today. Its address is what appears to be a residential section of Newark, and there’s no record of the company. At the time of this ad, however, it was involved in a patent infrignement suit regarding electrical switches. It had been sued by Cutler Hammer for infringement of two patents. Beaver got a belated Christmas present on January 5, 1925, when the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals held the two patents invalid.

 


Click Here For Today’s Ripley’s Believe It Or Not Cartoon



Is Reporter Jay Kolls a Racist?

Minneapolis mayor either "flashing a known gang sign" or "pointing." KSTP photo.

Minneapolis mayor either “flashing a known gang sign” or “pointing.” KSTP photo.

By now, we have all seen KSTP reporter Jay Kolls story about “a photo of Minneapolis Mayor Betsy Hodges posing with a convicted felon while flashing a known gang sign.

The conventional wisdom is that the mayor was  merely pointing at the person, and I tend to agree with that interpretation of the picture. And since the convicted felon in question is African-American, the conventional wisdom, is also that Kolls and KSTP are racist.

Before we decide whether Jay Kolls is racist, we need to first figure out whether you and I are racist.  I’m a white Republican, so presumably, I’m the last person who can provide good information about racism. On top of that, I have the distinction of having gone through 13 years of the Minneapolis Public Schools during a time in which I encountered exactly one (1) fellow student who was African-American. And it turns out she was adopted. In short, I’m the kind of person one can probably count upon to be racist.

It turns out I am a racist. But that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t listen to me, because you’re probably a racist too.

When I say that I’m a racist, I guess it’s important to give a little bit of definition. It can mean two things. It can mean that I am hateful toward certain people because of their race. That definition doesn’t fit me, and it probably doesn’t fit you. There are a handful of people who fit that definition, and anything I say or anything you say won’t make much difference. Fortunately, in my experience, there are very few people who fit into that category. They’re probably a lost cause, and there’s not much you and I can do to change them.

I’m not that kind of racist, and neither are you. But I do make judgments about people based on their race, and so do you. I’ve come to realize this over the last few years in my business as a Continuing Legal Education provider. Lawyers in most states need a certain number of hours of continuing legal education per year, and I provide those classes. In Minnesota, attorneys need two credits of “elimination of bias,” a subject I assumed that I was completely unqualified to teach. But I kept getting requests, since those were the credits that Minnesota attorneys needed. Finally, I put together a course, and I was hard pressed to fill up one hour with meaningful content. I found some reports prepared by the Minnesota Supreme Court, and we talked about them. Over the years of presenting this course, it has grown, and I can now easily discuss the subject for well over two hours. Everyone gets their full credit and they go away happy. And it turns out that they actually learn something in the process. But I probably learned more than they did.  learned that I’m a racist, and so are you.

This is a natural effect of my background, and it’s also a natural effect of your background. As noted above, I went through 13 years of school without encountering very many black students. I don’t remember the incident, but the first black person I met was apparently an emergency room physician when I was about four years old. I got my head cracked open (which some say explains many things), and I was rushed to the emergency room to have it stitched back together. The doctor faced with the task of sewing me back together was black. My parents were horrified. They weren’t horrified because the doctor was black; they were horrified that I would blurt out something embarrassing, because I had never seen a black person before.  We didn’t have black people where we lived.

It turns out that I didn’t blurt out anything embarassing, and I apparently didn’t even notice. I was apparently too concerned with my injuries to notice the skin color of they guy sewing me back together. (I have reflected over the years that it was somewhat remarkable that a black man was a doctor in 1965. This took place in Indiana, and it was later explained to me that the doctor was probably from the South and went to school in the South, but had to move to Indiana in order to work as a doctor.)

My first real interaction with a black person was with my seventh grade math teacher. He was a pretty good teacher, and as I recall, he was one of my favorite teachers. And he was black. This was not a big deal to me at all, since I had been instructed, quite correctly, over the previous six years that I should not judge people by the color of their skin. But up until that point, a “black person” was a theoretical concept. I had seen black people on TV, but they were usually on TV only because they were black. They typically weren’t on TV for other reasons.  I remember a school assembly, which was probably in 1968, where our white teachers talked about a black man named Martin Luther King. They explained that he was a great man who got shot because he was black. I understood this at a theoretical level, and I knew that there was nothing wrong with black people, even though some people apparently thought that there was.

But until seventh grade, I never had any interaction with a black adult, and I had met only one other black student. I did learn that there were a handful of people who were hateful toward people of other races. One day, when another student was  annoyed with something the teacher had done, I heard her mutter under her breath, “dumb n—-.” I was shocked, because I had been told for six years that this was wrong.  I knew that there was one nutcase in Memphis who hated people because of the color of their skin, but it was rather shocking to know that one existed in person.  But that was the exception.  I’ve never met too many people like that.  Unfortunately, they’re probably a lost cause.

Even though I went to an all-white school in an all-white neighborhood, other than this single example, I never encountered a single person who was hateful toward other people because of the color of their skin. I’m sure there were other examples. And I’ve later heard of other examples right in my old neighborhood. But these were the exception. Most people didn’t hate other people. I certainly didn’t.  And I doubt if you do.

But I just told you that I was a racist and that you’re a racist. How to I reconcile this contradiction?

One of the lawyers who took my CLE program related a story about what happened to him in court, and I think it illustrates perfectly why I am a racist. He was in court before a judge, and I think he would attest to the fact that the judge in the case was not racist, in the sense of having any hateful attitudes toward anyone. But she did something that I’m quite certain was motivated by the same racism that I have and that you probably have.

Not surprisingly, in court proceedings, tempers can occasionally flare. When they do, the judge typically gets things back on track by sternly admonishing the people involved. If things get really out of hand, then the judge might impose some sanctions. But generally, a scolding does the trick. This lawyer described an incident that’s not particularly extraordinary. The opposing lawyer was questioning a witness, didn’t like the answers he was getting, and was getting angry. At one point, he reached across the table and grabbed the papers that the witness was consulting. Needless to say, this isn’t the correct procedure. The attorney I know reacted by standing up and shouting something, and probably grabbing for the papers to give back to his client.

The judge’s life experience probably included many situations where two angry lawyers were arguing with each other. Normally, she probably would have done something like say, “gentlemen, stop that!” If it was particularly bad, perhaps she would have held one of them in contempt and leveled a fine. She would have known what to do, because she’s seen angry lawyers before, and knows what to do in order to cool them off.  That’s just part of her life experience.

But this wasn’t an ordinary case of two men being angry. It was a case of two angry black men. And to make matters worse, it was two big angry black men. And everyone else in the room was black.

She had probably never encountered this situation before: Two angry black men shouting at each other in a room where she was the only white person. Or even worse, she did have experience (perhaps just from watching TV) with angry black people shouting at each other. From her experience, she knew that this sort of thing usually turned violent. That’s a perfectly logical conclusion: Every time she has seen angry black people before, it turned violent. She had previously seen angry white people calm down.  She had never seen an angry black person calm down.

So she did exactly what I probably would have done. She did the racist thing. She pushed the “panic button” and quickly exited the room. Armed bailiffs quickly took her place and restored order.  She wouldn’t have pushed the panic button on two white lawyers.  So she must be racist, just like me.

She made a judgment based on her experience, and her judgment was probably the same one I would have made. After all, she is racist, and so am I. I don’t have much experience with angry black people, other than what I see on TV. After all, I spent the first 18 years of my life not having any black peers. I had two black teachers, but teachers don’t shout at one another. So I have absolutely no experience with how black people calm down after being angry. I simply don’t have a large enough data set to make any meaningful conclusions. I have to resort to the very limited experience I have. So if I were the judge and two angry big black lawyers were shouting at one another, I would press the panic button. But since I have a lot of experience with angry white people, I wouldn’t push the button. In my experience, angry white people rarely resort to violence.

So we can safely conclude that the judge in that case was racist, and we can safely conclude that I am a racist. I’m not a hateful person, and I doubt if the judge was either. We simply make judgments based on what we observe, and based upon our personal experiences.

We now turn to the photo of the mayor of Minneapolis and an African-American man. After giving the matter a little thought, I have come to the conclusion that the two are engaged in a behavior known as “pointing at one another.” I have noticed that politicians like to point at people. For example, when I saw Sen. Dave Thompson at the State Fair, I waved at him. Since he’s a politician, he did what politicians often do:  He pointed at me. Other politicians have pointed at me, and I’ve seen politicians point at other people. If a photographer had captured a picture of Sen. Thompson and me, there would be little doubt about what was going on. Everyone would agree that he was pointing at me. It wouldn’t be particularly newsworthy, because we’re all used to seeing white people point at other white people.

But when I first saw the picture of the mayor pointing at an anonymous black person, that wasn’t my first reaction. My first reaction was, indeed, that she was foolishly “flashing a gang sign.” I had this reaction because I was a racist, in the sense that I have no experience (certainly no experience in the first 18 years of my life) of black people pointing at one another. My only experience with black people using hand gestures is what I’ve seen on TV. So I used my experience to judge the situation, and I quickly came to the conclusion that she was “flashing a gang sign,” probably after having been goaded into doing so.

It turns out I was wrong, but that was my initial reaction. I thought it was a gang sign, because I’m racist. I would have pushed the panic button in the courtroom, because I’m racist. So it is indeed a correct conclusion if you say that the judge was racist, or that KSTP was racist, or that Jay Kolls was racist, or that I am racist.

But it’s a big mistake to stop there. Because it’s safe to say that you are also racist. You have your own life experiences, and you also use those life experiences to make judgments. Usually, those judgments are correct, but sometimes they are wrong. And because your experiences are skewed toward those of your one race, this means that some of your judgments are racist. You’re not evil and you’re not hateful. But you are racist. Therefore, very little is accomplished by simply branding me, or KSTP, or Jay Kolls as being racist. Very little is accomplished by lumping us in with the guy who shot Martin Luther King or even the kid who muttered “dumb n—–” about the teacher.

If you want to hear more, feel free to download the podcasts of my “elimination of bias” CLE program. If you’re a lawyer, you can get 2 CLE credits for $20. But there’s no cost to listen to the podcast.


Can You Vote Before Your 18th Birthday? Maybe

Wisconsin teen Zachary Ziolkowski won’t be allowed to allowed to vote Tuesday, since his 18th birthday is Wednesday. Most comments that I’ve seen online have been critical of the teen for even trying, and the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board ruled against him. But he has a credible argument.

The 27th Amendment states that “the right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.” And Wisconsin Statute 6.02 provides that “every U.S. citizen age 18 or older who has resided in an election district or ward for 28 consecutive days before any election where the citizen offers to vote is an eligible elector.” Section 6.05 goes on to say that this means “any person who will be 18 years old on or before election.

But, you say, Mr. Ziolkowski doesn’t “turn 18” until the day after the election. After all, he won’t get a birthday cake until Wednesday, November 5, and his birth certificate apparently says that he came into the world on November 5, 1996.

Of course, the matter is further complicated by the fact that most people are not born at the stroke of midnight. If someone was born at 12:01 AM on November 4, 1996, then there is no question that they are 18 years old on election day. If the polls open at 8:00, then they are 18 years and 7 hours old, clearly old enough to vote. But what about the prospective voter who was born at 11:59 PM? That person, even if they show up at closing time, has not been around for eighteen years. They are only 17 years, 364 days, and 20 hours old.

Most people would recognize that the kid born at 11:59 PM has the right to vote. Mathematically, that person is not 18 years old. But we need to draw the line somewhere, and most people assume that we draw the line with the birthday: When you wake up on your 18th birthday, you are 18 years old. That’s where the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board decided to draw the line.

But Mr. Ziolkowski has a pretty credible argument that the line should be drawn elsewhere. And the Social Security Administration, among others, agreed with him when it was called upon to decide whether a girl was entitled to social security benefits for the month of November 1962. The girl was born on December 1, 1944, and “turned 18,” under the common parlance, on December 1, 1962. She was collecting death benefits until 18. She was 17 years old the entire month of November, so one would think that she should collect benefits for that month. But the Social Security Administration ruled against her. It held that “a person attains a given age on the day before his corresponding birthday, i.e., the anniversary of his birth corresponding to that age.” In this case, the girl attained the age of 18 on November 30, the day before her birthday. Therefore, she was not entitled to benefits for November.  (Lest you think the government was being heartless to the poor girl, they recognized that the same rule should apply for the more common situation of calculating when benefits start, which they noted would be the day before the retiree’s 62nd birthday.)

The Social Security Administration noted that this rule “has been applied consistently by the courts.” It also noted that the rule was cited by both Blackstone and Kent. Interestingly, Blackstone’s phraseology is somewhat ambiguous:

So that full age in male or female is twenty-one years, which age is completed on the day preceding the anniversary of a person’s birth, who till that time is an infant, and so styled in law.

Blackstone’s Commentaries, page 92 (1915 edition)

Kent puts it this way: “The age of twenty-one is the period of majority … and that age is completed on the beginning of the day preceeding the anniversary of the person’s birth.”
Kent’s Commentaries, Vol. 2, page 265 (1860 edition).  Kent cites four cases for this proposition, two British cases and two American cases:

Anon. 1 Salk. 44. 1 Ld. Raym. 480, Sir Robert Howard’s case, 2 Salk. Rep.. 625, Hamlin v. Stevenson, 4 Dana’s Kentucky Rep. 597, and State v. Clarke, 3 Harr. Del. R. 557.

I didn’t find the full text of any of these cases online, but there is a nice summary of the Hamlin v. Stevenson case available here:

Stevenson owed Hamlin a sum of money which he refused to pay. Hamlin who was still an infant started this action against Stevenson to recover the debt. Stevenson had no real defense on the suit and so filed a dilatory defense to the effect that Hamlin was an infant and therefore ought to bring suit by a “next friend” according to the requirements of the court. It happened that Stevenson made this plea on the day preceding Hamlin’s twenty-first birthday and this was also the day of the trial. The question at issue was whether Hamlin had reached his majority on that day. Chief Justice Robertson gave the opinion of the Court: “It is the common law that a person is twentyone years old on the day preceding the twenty-first anniversary of his birth. Therefore, Hamlin was of age on the day when the plea was filed, and when the issue upon it was tried. Consequently he had the right to prosecute the suit in his own name without the intervention of a friend.

The Social Security Administration’s decision also cited two American cases, both of which are available online, United States v. Wright, 197 Fed. 297 (8th Cir. 1912), and Frost v. State, 45 So. 203 (Ala. 1907).  The Wright case states the rule very clearly, “an infant becomes of full age the first moment of the day before his twenty-first anniversary.”

It’s not surprising that Mr. Ziolkowski’s father happens to be an attorney. But according to the news item, he learned about the old common-law rule ” in his high school business law class.” At it certainly looks like he’s absolutely right.

The Wisconsin Legislature could have used the word “birthday” in the election statutes but did not do so. Elsewhere in the Wisconsin Statutes, the Legislature does use the word “birthday.” For example, under Wisconsin Statutes 938.18, a juvenile can be tried as an adult in certain cases when the offense took place “on or after the juvenile’s 15th birthday.” There’s a strong argument to be made that the phrase “age 18 or older” in the statute should be interpreted under the common law.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court has stated:

A statute does not change the common law unless the legislative purpose to do so is clearly expressed in the language of the statute. Id. To accomplish a change in the common law, the language of the statute must be clear, unambiguous, and peremptory.

Fuchsgruber v. Custom Accessories, Inc., 244 Wis.2d 758, 2001 WI 81, 628 N.W.2d 833 (2001).

Also, this isn’t really an issue of Wisconsin state law. As noted above, 18 year olds have the right to vote under the federal constitution. So the federal interpretation, such as that made by the Social Security Administration, seems compelling.

I’ll be an election judge in Minnesota on Tuesday. If you were born on November 5, 1996, and you walk into my precinct, this is above my pay grade. I’m going to call the county before I hand you a ballot. But I hope they say yes.

For further complications involving people who cross the International Date Line, there is a fictional case discussing the subject.  I believe it was in the book More Uncommon Law, but it might have been in the first volume, Uncommon Law: Being 66 Misleading Cases.



Debt Collection Firm Messerli & Kramer Gives $1000 to Rep. Alice Hausman

This 1833 Democratic cartoon shows Democrat Andrew Jackson destroying the Devil's Bank.  Times have changed.  Wikipedia Illustration.

This 1833 Democratic cartoon shows Democrat Andrew Jackson destroying the Devil’s Bank. Times have changed. Wikipedia Illustration.

Even though I’ve always been a Republican, I always believed that most Democrats want to “stand up for the little guy.”  Their policies actually hurt the little guy, but at least their heart is in the right place, and their motives are pure. Or so I used to believe.

Maybe that’s still true of some Democrats, but it’s becoming less and less common. I first realized this when I started to see how many ties there were between big business and the Democrats. At first, I dismissed this as “country club liberalism.” So the argument goes, the wealthy feel guilty about their ill-gotten lucre, and to atone for their sins, they support liberal causes. But then, I started to notice that it’s generally the biggest of the big that benefit from Democratic policies. If you’re a large bank or a large insurance company, or even a large polluter, you’re well capitalized, and you can bear the regulatory burdens as a cost of doing business, and then simply pass those costs on to your customers.

But if you’re a small bank, or a small insurance company, or even a small polluter, you don’t have sufficient capital to bear those regulatory burdens. As a result, you go out of business. Or, if you’re lucky, one of your well capitalized competitors buys you out. To your former competitors, the regulatory burdens are a non-issue. They simply pass those costs along to their customers. And now, as an added bonus, they don’t have to worry about competition.

This point was driven home to me when I recently happened to look at the Campaign Finance reports filed this year by my legislator, Rep. Alice Hausman. I happened to be looking at those reports because of an address mix-up, as I previously reported on this blog.

According to Rep. Hausman’s campaign website, the legislator believes in “investing in hard-working families and middle-class Minnesotans.” She believes in a livable wage, affordable housing, and, ironically enough, relieving the burden of debt on college students.  Her legislative website contains a press release about fighting financial scams.

In short, she has concern for the little person, she recognizes the burden of debt, and she’s worried about financial scams.  But one incongruous name kept showing up on her campaign finance reports, that of law firm Messerli & Kramer. In 2014, she received a contribution of $250 from Messerli & Kramer lobbyist John Apitz. During 2013, Apitz had also contributed another $250, and Messerli & Kramer lobbyist Ross E. Kramer contributed $250. In addition, the Messerli & Kramer Political Action Committee had donated  $250 to her campaign coffers. So in just over 18 months, the law firm was responsible for a thousand dollars in the legislator’s war chest.

A lot of little people probably recognize the name Messerli & Kramer.  They’re very likely to recognize that name if they are worried about financial scams or the burden of debt, because Messerli & Kramer is one of the state’s largest debt collectors.  And they’ve been called on the carpet many times for their practices in collecting those debts.

Like any other business, Messerli & Kramer  has a right to give money to politicians. The Citizens United case makes clear that they have that right.  But the name stands out like a sore thumb in support of someone who supposedly supports the little guy.

Messerli & Kramer is a prestigious law firm with offices in Minneapolis, St. Paul, and Milwaukee.  Most little people don’t know the names of prestigious law firms, but anyone in Minnesota who has gotten behind on a car payment or a credit card bill probably knows the name Messerli & Kramer, since the firm’s Plymouth office operates a high-volume debt collection practice. In fact, because the firm does such a high volume of business, it has resorted to outsourcing to a company in Birmingham, Alabama, simply to mail out the huge volume of correspondence.  They send out so many collection letters that their own office can’t handle the volume.

My personal involvement with Messerli & Kramer dates back to 2002 when I was hired by a woman who needed to sort out a mess involving her Discover Credit Card. She was being sued in Anoka County, and Discover was represented by that friend of the little guy, Messerli & Kramer. I was appalled by the tactics employed by Messerli & Kramer. Messerli and Kramer attorneys made false statements in an affidavit in order to obtain a default judgment. I had to go to court and get the default judgment set aside. Then, Messerli & Kramer failed to properly respond to discovery.  The judge in the case, District Judge Sharon Hall, found that the plaintiff offered an affidavit containing false statements, failed to comply with court rules, and failed to cooperate in the discovery process.

Judge Hall set aside the default judgment, and held that the firm’s misconduct was so egregious as to warrant simply tossing out the plaintiff’s case. She also awarded my attorney fees.

Dissatisfied with this turn of events, Messerli & Kramer took the case to the Minnesota Court of Appeals. In 2004, the Court of Appeals affirmed, and awarded my attorney fees on appeal.

In 2007, the Minnesota Attorney General filed a lawsuit against Messerli and Kramer. The state’s 38-page complaint referred to my earlier case, as well as numerous other cases of misconduct by the law firm in its collection activities. That complaint noted that Messerli & Kramer is involved in the collection of student loan debt, the very burden that Rep. Hausman’s website professes concern.

Banks, credit card companies, and student loan lenders are entitled to legal representation. But Messerli & Kramer has a documented history of abuses in carrying out those representations.

Many middle-class Minnesotans instantly recognize the name of Messerli & Kramer. And if they live in Roseville, Falcon Heights, Lauderdale, and St. Paul, they’re probably represented in the legislature by Rep. Alice Hausman. Can they turn to their legislator for support when abuses occur? Can they turn to the legislator who accepted a thousand dollars in campaign contributions from the very firm that is hounding them?

Unfortunately, voters in other districts encounter the same problem, and it doesn’t matter whether your representative is a Republican or a Democrat.  The Messerli and Kramer cash flows freely, and they’re happy to give money to Republicans as well as Democrats.  Messerli and Kramer’s political contributions can be found at FollowTheMoney.org,  That site reveals that over the last 18 years, they gave over a quarter of a million dollars to politicians, with little regard for the politician’s views.  Democrats seem to have received a slim majority of their cash, but Republicans are well represented as well.  In 2002, they gave to Republican Tim Pawlenty.  In 2014, they once again had the checkbook out, this time giving to Democrat incumbent Mark Dayton.

Not too surprisingly, back in 2002 (about the same time they were filing false affidavits in Anoka County), they also donated to Democrat Roger Moe, who was running against Pawlenty.  That same year, they donated to Rep. Rich Stanek, a Republican, who currently serves as the Hennepin County Sheriff, the guy who needs to execute the writs against the people that Messerli and Kramer is suing.

In 2006, they gave to ultra-conservative Republican Jim Abeler.  But political ideology didn’t stop them from giving.  The same year, they also donated to ultra-liberal Democrat Ellen Anderson.

Nobody has done anything illegal.  The Citizens United case gives them the right to give money to Representative Hausman, or to another politician with opposing views.  It even gives them the right to donate to both sides, which appears to be exactly what they are doing.  But the voters ought to know about it and decide in the polling place whether this is just plain wrong.

This post expresses the opinions of the author, Richard P. Clem, who prepared and paid for it.  This post is not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee.



Bomb at St. Patrick’s Cathedral, 1914

World101314

A hundred years ago this evening, a bomb exploded in St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York. One person was injured, and the New York Evening World had an extra edition with this banner headline on the street the same evening.

Despite the size of the headline, I had never heard of this incident, and it’s barely mentioned in the historical record.

The rector of the Cathedral, Msgr. Michael Lavelle, (1856-1939) is quoted as describing it as “a small bomb. It did little actual damage outside of splintering some of the pews and tearing a hold in the floor about two feet square. It filled the interior of the church with smoke and caused a lot of excitement among the worshipers. I have no idea who did it. I have received no threatening letters of any kind in a long time and am at peace with the world.”

The October 15 issue of the New York Tribune reported that the Reds were rejoicing over this and other church bombings, and that the police were seeking an I.W.W. plot that “menaced many.”

There was very little actual damage and the indicent has been forgotten. But there were banner headlines, people to blame, and general excitement. Very little has changed in a hundred years.



J. Frank Wheaton, Minnesota Republican Legislator

In many ways, the story of J. Frank Wheaton doesn’t fit in with a lot of people’s preconceptions of history. Therefore, he is simply ignored. Nobody has ever heard of J. Frank Wheaton. His story simply didn’t fit in with what people wanted to believe.

J. Frank Wheaton was the first African-American member of the Minnesota Legislature, and he was a Republican. He was elected to the House of Representatives in 1898 and served one term, after which he took a job out of state. He represented a district in southwest Minneapolis that was called “the most aristocratic portion of Minneapolis.” It included the Kenwood neighborhood of Minneapolis, and extended to modern day Eden Prairie and Excelsior. Of over 40,000 residents in the district, only about 100 were African-American.

In addition to being the first African-American to serve in the legislature, he was also the last until 1973, when Roy Pleasant of Minneapolis took office.

And Wheaton was by no means any kind of “token” Black. He was widely recognized as a brilliant attorney. He was the first African-American graduate of the University of Minnesota Law School in 1894, and was elected class orator. He worked in both state and city government in addition to his private practice.

Wheaton was also a Republican. Later in his life, after moving to New York, he became a Democrat. But in Minnesota, in addition to serving in the legislature as a Republican, he was twice elected to represent the state at the Republican National Convention.

He was featured in an article in the St. Paul Globe on February 12, 1899. Wheaton introduced into the legislature, and successfully saw passed, a measure to ban discrimination based upon race in public accommodations. The language of this 1899 statute is virtually identical to the language subsequently used in the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964. Once again, Wheaton’s story doesn’t fit in with the conventional narrative, which holds that Civil Rights flowed from federal action in the 1960’s. In truth, more than six decades earlier, Wheaton had seen this measure passed in the state legislature, with little notice taken of the common-sense provisions.

I find it appalling that nobody has ever heard of J. Frank Wheaton. He doesn’t fit the conventional narrative, so he is simply ignored.

References

J. Frank Wheaton at Minnesota Legislature

J. Frank Wheaton at Wikipedia

African American Registry

BlackPast.org

 



The Cost of Leaving: Nazis, $60. USA, $2350.

According to the Milwaukee Journal, June 29, 1939, all 19-year-old “Reich citizens” living in the United States were ordered to register at the German consulate to register for compulsory military and labor service under the Reich. According to the report, no such orders had yet been received by Germans in Milwaukee, but those in Detroit had been directed to report to the German consulate in Cleveland. According to the proclamation setting forth the order, those failing to do so would be subject to a fine of 150 reichsmarks (about $60) or with arrest.

Seventy-five years later, the U.S. Government announced that the fee for renouncing U.S. citizenship had gone up to $2350, in addition to the steep “exit tax” which applies in many cases.

References:

Forbes, U.S. Hikes Fee to Renounce Citizenship by 422%


Elwood Hannsman: Boy Scout, Inventor, Lawyer

WashTimes23Aug1914A hundred years ago today, the Washington Times of August 23, 1914, shows these scouts at Camp Archibald Butt, a camp operated by the Baltimore and Washington councils of the BSA between 1914 and 1916.

The scouts are identified as E.L. Maschmeyer, Mitchell Carroll, King Ridgeway, Paul Grove, George Read, Elwood Hannsman, and Randolph Carroll.

windshieldcleanerThe scout second to the right is presumably the same Elwood Hannsman who went on in 1936 to secure U.S. Patent No. 2031830 for the windshield cleaner shown here. Mr. Hannsman was also issued U.S. Patents 2268072 for a direct reading gauge (1941) and 2100188 (1937) for another windshield cleaner. The assignee of all three patents was the Stewart-Warner Corporation of Chicago, which was presumably Mr. Hannsman’s employer.

And at some point, it would appear that Stewart-Warner sent Mr. Hannsman to law school, since he is listed as one of the attorneys for Stewart-Warner in a number of cases, including
Jiffy Lubricator Co. V. Stewart-Warner Corp., 177 F.2d 360 (4th Cir. 1949).

He was a member of the ABA Section of Patent Trade-Mark and Copyright Law. He was the Chairman of the Patent Sub-Section at the time of his death in 1954.  (ABA Journal, June 1954).


A Parental Kidnapping Solved, 1919

BLrewardposterIt appears that the pages of Boys Life magazine were used to solve a parental kidnapping case in 1919.

This ad looks somewhat out of place in the November, 1919, issue of Boys Life magazine.  It reports that Graydon Hubbard, age 12, was an active member of his Scout Organization at Brookville, Indiana, when he and his brother Harold, age 8, were “stolen from their home early last July.”

The ad goes on to say that Graydon “will undoubtedly make an effort to get in touch with the nearest Boy Scout Unit to the point where they are located,” adding ominously, “if they are in this country.”

“If any Boy Scout–or Scout Master–learn their location–and will advise the Cincinnati Office of the William J. Burns Int. Detective Agency, Inc., of their address–upon receipt and verification of same–the above reward will be paid.”

The advertisement appears to have been successful, and it seems that some Scout in Riverside, California, must have collected the reward money. The November 30, 1919, issue of the Indianapolis Star reports that the boys’ mother, Mrs. M.P. Hubbard, was indicted in Indiana on a charge of kidnapping after the father, M.P. Hubbard, had been granted custody.

The boys were returned to Indiana from Riverside,California, by the chief of police and his wife, along with a private detective from the agency named in the advertisement. The article reports that Mrs. Hubbard had assumed a different last name and “had taught the children to go by that name.”  The article goes on to say that she had recently been named defendant in a lawsuit brought by the former husband.


Minnesota Court of Appeals Throws Out Commercial Vehicle Case

A decision released today by the Minnesota Court of Appeals might put a lot of commercial vehicle equipment tickets in doubt.  The Court held that the commercial vehicle inspector, a civilian employee of the Minnesota State Patrol, had no authority to stop a truck.  Therefore, everything discovered as a result of the stop (namely, that the driver didn’t have a valid license) couldn’t be used in court, and the conviction was reversed.

The case, State of Minnesota v. Kevin Ervin Stall, is discussed in more detail on my website.