The Nonpartisan Leader Newspaper, September 21, 1916, Page 19

“The Peo £oa i"(Continue'd fmm page 7) mental law of the state without humili- ating and useless appeals to reactionary legislatures that have too often sat at Bismarck, \ ; WELL SETTLED PRINCIPLES DF LAW DISREGARDED " Regardless of the merits of New Rock- ford or Bismarck as the state capital, the supreme courtin refusing the capit- . 8l removal question a place on the ballot this fall has turned its back on well-de- fined rules of law and igmored the voice of the people as expressed in the 1914 constitutional amendment and has dug up a flock of technicalities, scarcely tin- derstood by anybody except a lawyer, in order to defeat one of the constitutional - rights of the'-common people—the right of the petition. - - * In oné of the most reactionary deci- sions of recent years in this or.any other state, equaled only in the musty volumes of the past, the supreme court holds that the 1914 constitutional amendment is not self-enacting. ‘It holds that when 'the *_people by overwhelming vote reserved to themselyes the right to initiate constitu- tional- amendments they were not adop- ting a complete law, but were . merely giving the legislature permission to. pass laws in the future that would let the people at some future time, when the legislature would permit it, initiate their own constitutional amendments. In reaching this decision that the 1914 congtitutional amendment is not self-ex- ecuting, but merely a mandate to future legislatures to make it effective by ad- ditional legislation, the supreme court indulges in some remarkable logic. "' The constitution says that, “at least 25 per cent of the legal voters in each of not less than a majority of the coun- ties of the state” must sign a -petition for the initiation of a constitutional amendment before it can" be placed on the ballot. : The supreme says the inclusion of the words “at-least” makes it evident that the people in adopting ‘this part of the constitution did not mean to set an ab- solute standard of 25 per cent, but mere- Iy to fix a minimum, leaving it to the legislature to fix any percentage so long as the percentage fixed was not less than 26 per cent. For this reason, says the court; it is evident that the people did not mean this part of the constitution to be self-enacting.” Could a more hare-brained technicality be advanced? Unless the people in fix- . ing the percentage of voters necessary on initiative petitions fixed an absolute percentage, they were guranteeing them- selves nothing when they voted for this part of the constitution in 1914. For, if they merely fixed a minimum, leaving it to the legislature to fix any percentage it liked above that, what would prevent the legislature requiring 50, 75 or even 100 per cent of the voters on the petition, hus making the chance of initiating con- stitutional amendments remote, if not absolutely impossible ? ‘HAIR-SPLITTING LOGIC OF THE SUPREME COURT The provision reads very plainly that the petitions must contaih at least 25 per cent of the voters to be effective. Twenty-four and a half per cent would ‘not do. It must be 25 per cent. ‘It did ‘not mean what it does not say, that the legislature could make it 50, 75 or 100 per cent and thus destroy the right. of petition that the people were Teserving to themselves when they passed this con- stitutional amendment in 1914. " Yet the court puts this highly technical 'md un- reasonable int’arpretxtion on plain lang- . Then the supreme cqfirtsays, trying sion when they made it a part of : s “to show that. this constitutional amend- ment is.not self-enacting: : “It is strongly indicative of necessity for future legislation that. no. definite rule or computation of any requisite per- centage of signers is declared.” -~ In other words the supreme court holds that ‘because the provision giving ‘the people the right of petition does not state whether the peércentage of voters required shall be based on the vote for governor, secretary of state or some other officer, it can not ‘be self-enacting and needs-future legislation by the legis- lature before it is valid. But the fact is, in the case of the'New Rockford petition, the one before the court, that the petitioners filed more than the requisite number of names REGARD- LESS OF WHETHER THE PERCEN: TAGE WAS FIGURED ON THE VOTE FOR SECRETARY .OF STATE,. GOV- ERNOR- OR ANY OTHER OFFICER. Also, if the way the percentage is to be figured was not stated, it’ would have been good law to have' held that - the method of figuring used in other similar laws where petitions gre concerned should be -used. Courts have so held, yet the North Dakota court makes this one of the technicalities fatal to the right of petition. RN > > Another objection of the supreme court to the right of the people to initiate. constitutional amendments ‘is ‘that the provision adopted in 1914 does not pre- scribe an “enacting" clause” to be used in initiative bills for the amendment of the constitution brought up by petition. The answer to this mere technicality is that constitutional amendments do not have an enacting clause, and there is no reason why the sovereign peoplé should bind themselves to the use of any set form of words in declaring the funda- mental law. ' This was some more hair- splitting by the court in its seeming feverish hunt to find some defects in the provisions that gave the people the right to. initiate their own constitutional am- endments. 3 NORTH DAKOTA MUST DO AS OREGON' DOES TG The supreme court goes.on to say that the North Dakota constitutional provi- sion’ for the. initiation of constitutional amendments by -the people -follows the Oregon law, except that it leaves out certain provisions of the Oregon Iaw that made the Oregon provision self-en- acting, thus showing the intention not . to make the Dakota law self-enacting. Does North Dakota have to dot its “i’s” and cross the “t’s” as the state of Ore- gon does when North Dakota is framing a constitutional amendment? Should the plain language of the constitutional provision of 1914 govern and should it stand on its own legs? The supreme court says it should not; it left out something - in the Oregon law and this makes a fatal defect in the North Da- - — kota law. How do the people of North Dakota like this kind of technicalities, brought forward by a conrt to kmock out a provision of the constitution that guarantees - self-government to the people ? ¢ & . According to the'supreme court the provision for amending the constitution by petition as adopted by the people in .1914 is a mere mockery. It is a joke. _ It doesn’t mean what it says. It looked all right to the people when they voted for it, but it was a fraud. B ) A big feature of the supreme court decision is that it considers of first im- portance what the intention was of the legislature in submitting to the people the provision for the amendment of the - constitution by petition. ~The court makes a big argument of what the leg- islature intended by its wording of the pection in question before it was submit- ted to the peopie. COURT NOT CONCERNED - ABOUT THE PEOPLE'S WILL "What has that to do with it?" ‘real question is, what was the' intention Tlmr ple Shall Not Rule” thought sbout it important? Are not the people sovereign? Did not they be- lieve it was all right and meant what it said? Did they not think it would guar- antee to them the right to amend the con- stitution by petition, and did they not vote for it and adopt it for that reason? Of course they did. But to the supreme court this is unimportant. But wouldn’t it be good law to conmsider what ' the PEOPLE meant and understood when they adopted this amendment? - " There was and is no claim that the pe- titions asking for the submission of the capital removal question’ were bogus or forged. The court does not pass on’ thal. It merely denies the right of the people to initiate constitutional amend- ments until the legislature permits them to with further legislation. It means nothing that the people plainly gave themselves that right in 1914 by a vote‘ of 43,111 to 21,815. Capital removal may be right and it may be wrong.- That question is unim- portant beside the gréat proposition’ of X the right of the people to petition and’ the necessity that the powers of popular government shall not be encroached upon by the courts. g “HELP! HELP! If the Nonpartisan League does not watch out the Grand Forks Herald will swat it with a feather.—MINOT OPTI REPORTER. % LABOR AND FARMERS Labor day in Fargo was made memor- able by the fact that the farmer and the laboring men of the city came together to_exchange views. ) That’s something that will benefit both. < Lynn J. Frazier and John N: Hagan, candidate for governor and commission~ er of agriculture and labor presented the viewpoint of the farmer to the lab- oring men. ¥ (g Both predicted better conditions. for labor under the rule of the farmers which is coming in North Dakota. Dr. Ladd of the Agricultural College outlined reforms which the farmers de- mand and which will benefit the whole mass of the citizenship of the state. The conclusion was natural—the in- interests of producer and consumer are not antagonistic but mutual. Coopera- tion will bring about conditions that are more prosperous for both. There is no reason why the farmer and the laboring man should not be mutual cooperators. There are many good reasons why they should.—COOPERATe ORS’ HERALD. N ’ = A, O.U. W ® L] L] L] is the only fraternal soclety that submits its pocg;:;es to an annual valuation by a competent actuary. You can carry life insurance in the A. O. U. W. 80 per cent cheaper than in any old line company. All its policies are fully par- tictpating, Write for literature and sample policy without cost to you. Address HOME OFFICE Fargo LATHROP’S =REGISTERED BIG TYPE PROLIFIC POLAND CHINAS, from stock th;tweighfmzlfimtomeoum 8 sows If your - ~ SELF STARTER ¢ 2 and STORAGE BATTERY are out of order send them to GEO. A.FLATH, Fargo, N.D. USE MARSHALL OIL CO.’S PRODUCTS There’s a dealer in your town. Call for French auto oil, cylinder ofl, har- vester oil, gas engine oil. Rex axle grease. All gu'imnteed lu!ll:ricatlon. 3 . MARSHALL OIL CO. Fargo and Bismarck. The Hoiland Wild Oats - Separator Can you farm successfully without this wild oats separator ? New special catalog just out will be mailed on application. Address ALBERT HOILAND “FARGO, NORTH DAKOTA : v ckery and a fraud? Did not the people put the plain, easily ‘understood interpretation on this provi: . ers and bricks that they adopted it - ‘knowing it was a mockery the — k ) {4 B i § § i1 &