The Nonpartisan Leader Newspaper, May 17, 1920, Page 4

The People Have Spoken Case of North Dakota Industrial Program Before Supreme Court of United States—Decision Eagerly Awaited Washington Bureau, Nonpartisan Leader. URING two days —April 19 and 20 —the opponents of the Nonparti- can league ap- peared before the supreme court of the United States in this city, asking the court to reverse the decisions of the federal district court and of the supreme court of North Dakota and declare the North Dakota industrial pro- gram unconstitutional. The people of North Dakota and their administration had representatives present to meet this attack up- on the people’s laws. Their answer can be summed up in the seven words: “The people of North Dakota have spoken.” Frederick A. Pike of St. Paul and William Lemke of Fargo, counsel for the North Dakota industrial commission, in oral argument and written brief presented the case for the people. N. C. Young of Fargo, lawyer for the Northern Pacific railroad; Tracy Bangs of Grand Forks, lobbyist and lawyer for the telephone corporations of the Northwest, and C. J. Murphy of Grand Forks, representing the Great Northern railway—thése bitter enemies of the Nonpartisan league conducted the attack. They appealed to the highest court in the nation to over- rule the sweeping decision rendered last year by Judge Amidon in the federal district court at Far- go, in which the right of the people collectively, through their government, to go into the grain and flour and banking business, or into any other busi- ness they choose, was upheld. Somewhere in the middle of the field of battle over the rights of the people to conduct their own affairs without first getting consent from big busi- ness was William Langer, attorney general of North Dakota, who, apparently for political rea- sons, made a gesture of helping the in- dustrial commission to defend the indus- trial laws. He put forward Attorneys Nuchols and Lauder, who took up three- fourths of the time allotted to the state for its argument and who made so many confusing and damaging “admissions” that Mr. Pike was forced to use much of his precious 25 minutes in undoing the false impressions they had created. This he ac- complished in masterly fashion, showing that the Mill and Elevator association, the Bank of North Dakota and the Home Building association are not corporations, as Langer’s assistants had suggested, but are the state itself in business and merely using these trade names for the purpose of business. . THE CASE AS OUTLINED BY PEOPLE’S LAWYER Months may pass before the nine jus- tices shall have agreed upon a decision in the North Dakota case. Until then nobody will know what was the effect upon the court of the arguments presented. But the questions asked by Chief Justice White, by Justice Pitney, by Justice Holmes and by Justices McKenna, Vandevanter, Day and McReynolds during the four hours of discussion indicated that they would find the issue to be as simple as set forth by Mr. Pike: “By the act of separation from the mother country (in 1776) the people of the sovereign states became possessed of all power over their own affairs as a peo- ple. They remain today in full possession of all their original power and authority, except to the extent that they have def- initely delegated certain power, through the federal Constitution, to others. If this court is to declare that the people of North Dakota have no right to determine that they shall as a state go into the business of marketing and milling their grain, or go into any other line of business, it must The people of North Dakota have voted at seven different elections for their industrial program, in whole or in part. In 1912 and 1914 they voted for constitutional amendments to allow construction of state-owned elevators. In 1916 they voted twice—at the primary and general elections —for candidates who would carry out this plan. In 1918 they also voted twice—at the primary and general elections—for League candidates and also for new constitutional amendments. In 1919 they voted for the entire program, upholding seven referendum measures at a special election. Under these circumstances how can the justices of the supreme court or any one else come to any other conclusion thiu that “THE PEOPLE OF NORTH DAKOTA HAVE SPOKEN.” find in the Constitution, as interpreted by this court, a specific surrender of the power of the people to make such decisions. We hold that there has been no such surrender of power by the people; hence the people have full authority, and the peo- ple of North Dakota have spoken.” Young, Bangs and Murphy, briefly assisted, against their will, by. Attorney Thomas Daggett of St. Paul, representing a client who brought and lost a similar suit in the state supreme court, de- clared that the North Dakota constitutional amend- ments that permit the state to engage in all kinds of business, and the seven state laws carrying out this program, violate the federal Constitution. They argued that the fourteenth amendment to the federal Constitution prohibits the taking of money or goods from citizens without due legal process, and that due legal process means that the property taken must be used for a “public purpose.” They claimed that since the grain elevator business, the flour milling business and the banking business, as well as the business of building and selling homes, are private, they can not be made public, even by state constitutional amendment. Hence the North Dakota program is “revolutionary” and must be suppressed. The theory advanced by Attorneys Pike and Lem- | UNCLE SAM—“YOU LIED TO ME.” . BUSINESSAEZ e A Morris. ‘The favorite attack of the League opposition has been to call the organ- ized farmers “reds,” “radicals,” “Bolsheviki,” etc. But although the de- partment of justice has made two nation-wide raids, arresting thousands of so-called “reds,” most of whom were afterwards released because of lack of evidence of illegal acts, not ene was found in Nerth Dakota, PAGE FOUR 3 ke was that the federal courts have no authority to inquire into the objects for which the state may use money raised by taxation, so long as the state is satisfied that these objects are for the common good and not for the benefit merely of an individual or a few individ- uals. The only thing the fed- eral court can determine is: Have the people of the state, deliberately and legally, made up their minds? It is the “purpose,” not the object ac-. tually reached by the purpose, that is to be passed upon by the nine justices sitting in the national capital. - Langer’s lawyers did not support the industrial commission’s counsel in this position. Nuchols ar- gued for nearly an hour on a minor technical point, while Lauder conceded that the federal court had a right to judge as to whether a grain elevator is a “proper state business.” He made an appeal on behalf of the North Dakota farmers after throwing their case upon the mercy of the court. WOULD-BE NORTH DAKOTA “BOSS” IRRITATES SUPREME COURT JUSTICES Young and Bangs will long be remembered in the supreme court for the manner in which they irritated the chief justice and his associates by evading direct answers to questions. Accustomed to play the role of “big noise” in their home bail- iwicks, these fervid denouncers of the farmers’ movement went to pieces in the presence of men who were anxious to hear only a logical discussion of clean-cut issues. Their confusion was painful to witness. Young began with a reference to the “revolution- ary” character of the North Dakota amendments and laws. Then he switched to a demand that “inherent and reserved” rights of the citizen to keep his own property be upheld. After 10 minutes of aimless oratory, Chief Jus- tice White asked: “My dear sir, do you realize that you have told us nothing of the laws you refer to—that we are not yet informed as to whether it applies to anything on earth cr the moon or stars?” “I will come to that later, in logical or- der,” Young corrected the chief justice. And he went on with his remarks on the right of the minority to do as it pleases. Presently Justices McReynolds and Mec- Kenna protested that Young was not letting them into his secret—they did not know what the law dealt with. The chief jus- tice, with his earlier snubbing by Young in mind, remarked that Young might as well not be making an argument, that he was not listening, because the case itself had not yet been described. Justice Mc- Kenna inquired whether the law provided that the state could “run a bicycle shop or what ?” “If your honors please,” replied Young, “I shall come to that very soon, in its log- ical order.” When Young did finally explain the North Dakota program, the entire court sat up and became interested. Questions were shot at him from all along the bench. “Why shouldn’t the state operate a bank?” Young was asked. “It- might properly do so for bona fide banking purposes of its treasury,” Young responded, in substance, “but this bank is started merely to finance these industries.” “Well,” replied Justice McReynolds, “and why should not the state go into business?” “Why, that is taking money from the taxpayer without due process,” answered Young confidently. . “That is merely words,” responded the Justice. “We are interested in reasons.” But reasons were hard to find. How could Young and Bangs answer the re- peated verdict of all the people of North Dakota? : : What Next? -