The Kimball graphic. (Kimball, Brule County, Dakota [S.D.]) 1883-1905, 1884-06-06
TEE CAPITAL coaza1ssroN.
Talk in the Capital Coinmissioa Case End
od-speculation on the Decision OF the

Talk In the Capital Commission Case End
od-speculation on the Decision OF the
Court
The capital removal case was argued
before the full bench of tho supreme
court at Yankton on the 10th, and 10th,
on the appealfr % the decision ofJudge
Edgerton ousting the commissioners
from office. Col. William L. Villas, for
the appellants, opened the argument
and spoke four hours.
He went fully into the matter CT dele
cation Of power, with the object OF
| showing that the legislature has full
power to delegate the selection of a per-
manent seat OF government to the COM
| mission. He argued that congress,
having authority under the constitution
| to govern territories, has delegated this
power to legislatures. He cited cases
where congress, having authority to
| call forth militia, to raise and support
armies, grant letters Of Marque and
| reprisai, to borrow money and to do 9th
e things, and delegated this powcrto the
president. He then argued that, while
legislatures could not delegate their
law-making functions, they could and
| did delegate certain administrative duties
which legislatures could not convenient
ly attend to. Then by citing freely
from cases of which, he said, there were
| over ten hundred, heaimed to show that
state and territorial legislatures had
| passed bills, appointed commissions for
locating county seats, and that the prin-
ciples involved were exactly similar to
referred to the location of the capitals OF
Montana, Colorado, Iowa, Illinois and
Nebraska rs in point. 49,.
Judge Moody opened for the respon-
dents, and made II strong argument,
aiming to show that territorial legisla-
lures could not delegate power that
was delegated to them, and claimed
that the precedents of the appellants
were not in point, as no similar case
was ever before the courts hitherto.
Mr.. Trip began his argument in the
same line. and he developed further
the idea that a Legislature could not
delegate to commissioners power which
congress delegated to it. John r.
Gamble spoke briefly for the respond
ents. Col. Cloush spoke about thirty
minutes for appellants, making a clear
statement of the territorial capital in
the first instant and afterwards Of re-
moving it. Col. Villas taerenpon closed
he case.
He briefly touched upon points and
objections made by the respondents,
and reviewed the discussion. He ad-
mitted frankly that one legislature could
not bestow upon another its law-making
functions, but could call in adm carry
ing out a measure. The capital COM
misioners did not remove the capital.
That was fully done when the legisla-
ture could not itself conveniently per-
form.
Both sides of the question were argued
with skill and ability. The question is
one which interests the people of the
whole territory, as well as thousands
all over the country, The decision
probably will not be made inside of q
week. People are guessing on the re-
suit. Many Yankton people are san
guine that the capital will stay, though
few venture to say how the different
Judges will decide. Ii Ildgerton can
get the agreement of one judge he will
be sustained, while it will take all
three of the others to reverse his de-
cision.