Press and daily Dakotaian. (Yankton, Dakota Territory [S.D.]) 1880-1889, 1883-03-12

,eoept lseisiative session WAS The veto Of
nsasnsss pssssd which originated with
members who opposed the capital com.
mission scheme. Prominent among these
we're ~ Bpsarnsh normal school bill
By NJ. WsehAbsssh;.g the Springfield
normal school bill-by Mr.. Ziebsch, and
Mr.. Novlin's irrigating ditch bill. All
Of these gentlemen opposed the COVER
..sM1 a.shs bill ,vaa,vo.oed for
tho alleged ssason thF the territory
could nos afosd - expeud $4,000 for an
sdsssa;asal iostitution in the Hills,
though thsRovernor bad. before the vote
on the eapitsls bill. told, Mr. WsshSbaugh
that Iris request was . very moderate one
and he was surprised ct the small amount
asked for. But it appears that the gov
srnor shortly Afterwards lost possession
of his economical ideas, Tor he signed the
capital donmission bill, which
provides for an expen-
diturs dAsasg tths nA1ttxo years Of not
lees thss $lo0. 0.ooebi the peoples money,
oil for the iustensnce Of = rowing commits.
sioa empowered todo Just what the legis-
lature is directedb by general government,
-sitssst . single cent Of expense to the
territesL -: ~ rss...n.
The sptinRneld normal school bill was
vetoed dGpon the ground that Springfield
was - dear the Vermillion university
that normal school was not needed at
theiaspAA1As4s The distance between
shs.feA 6alty-&se ysailesand . normal
school i entirely d6ersnt in its designs
snd III benefits from university. But
AieAaoalionH2-mAle -blnnder in the case
Of the Springfield. bill, which must have
Allied vi! hei s6tk Schagrin. he forgot
10 veto il until after the three days
limitation had expired and it had become
s4sx 1its pishin. But this did not
deter ~ distipguished manipulation from
sttenpting his petty revenge. He sent
the bin to the council with his objec.
tions thsreto and included in his mes
ssge statement that an attempt might
be ma1 70 ut up claim that the three
dayS limitation had passed; but, he said,
this wsslot %. - there was an error in
the daAaA Ia reosipt given BY him for
tho bill. Mr.. Ziebach appealed to the
secord-and it was clearly shown that the
bill had been sent to. the governor on
the 9th Of March and his veto message
was dated the 9th Of March. The sub.
terfuso failed. asven some Of the cor.
rupt Gs0snt In the council could not
endosss 20 barefaced Transaction as
this. The council adopted o resolution
to tho effect that the bill mad become a
law BY limitation and directing the clerk
to deposit it With the secretary of the
territory.
Mr.. Nowin's vetoed bill provided that
the owners OF irrigating bitches should
not be held responsible for damages
arising from the carelessness of persons
20 whom they sold water. Itwas clearly
as proper . measure as the proposition
thstApessonisno nog liable for the damages
inflicted by an unrdly animal after il
had passed from his possession. But the
governor vetsed il. Mr.. Nowlin had pre-.
viously voted against the capital CON
mission bill. Tho governor gave as his
reason for not signing the measure that
it 'oontravened the common law" 4
proposition most absurd. Legislative
enactments O. o rulo contravene the
common Law. II they did not there
would 30 little use Of organizing anG
maintaining Legislative bodies. MIR. Now
lin was surprised, disgusted and hearth,
ashamed Of the company he found him
self in.