The Dickinson press., 1884-09-27
The CAPITAL QUESTION.
Decision OF tho Supreme Court Of
tho Territory, Affirming the
constitutlonality ofthe Act
Creating the Capital
Commission.

Commission.
The Decree Prepared by Judge Church
and Chief Justice Edgerton's Dissent
Ing Opinion, Covering all Points.
Yankton, Oak. Special Telegram, Sept. 90
This morning Judge Edgerton opened the ter
ritorial supreme court for the purpose of filing
the opinion Of the different justices on case'
argued at the last term. The most importan
was the celebrated capital commission case, il
which Judges Hudson, Church and Palmer re-
versed Judge Edgerton's decision and declared
the law q good and valid one. The opinion Of
the majority was prepared by Judge Church
and is an interesting document, covering sixty:
three pages of legal cap. Judge Church says
felt in it in all sections of the territory, caused
him to go into the matter fully and make the
opinion of the majority so clear that the popular
MINI would readily understand it. Judge Ed.
gerton's dissenting opinion is not quite so long,
but is a strong. paper, and well represents the
are well fortified with references to confirm
various points made. While these opinions
are different in form from the argument of the
respective attorneys, they are much the same
" ouOoVduCc, duu III Tuuulu6 GueLu over tQe
reader is forcibly reminded Of the brilliant
arguments made by Col. Villas for the appellant
and Moody, Trip and Gallagher for tho re-
spondent Judge Church first defines the re-
lation of q territory to the general government
and the general power of the territorial legis-
lature under the organic act, and then dis
cusses the provision made in the organic act
for changing the location Of the seat of govern
ment
The organic act provides a temporary seat Of
government, vests legislative power in the
governor and legislative assembly, and ex-
tends such power over all rightful subjects Of
legislation. Recognizing that tho center of
population and commerce might shift, con-
gress wisely provided that the seat of govern
Ment, after having been located, was still sub
ject to change by the governor and legislative
location could be changed had the place been
named in the bill; but tie change made by the
new commissioners is objected to on the
ground of the delegation of delegated pow
ers. The territory is large, and the session of
the legislature limited to sixty days. 1t was
therefore inexpedientfo for the legislature, either
in q body or by committee, to select q new To-
cation. As its power extended over all rightful
subjects of legislation, and as the full scope
and purposes of pertinent sections of the Re-
ylsed Statutes of congress was to delegate to
upon matters pertaining to their own local
self-government-powers which, by the way,
the people had first delegated to congress-the
passage OF the capital removal bill cannot be
regarded as IN enlargement of the general leg
lslatlve power conferred.
References were given showing how capitals
Of states and territories and county seats had
been located and how congress had delegated
to the president of the United States AUTHORITY
to raise armies, grant letters of marque and re-
prlsal, borrow money and to do other acts of a
similar nature.
stRut this . vi 4bo ;rdr, fton.
'sidered a case of delegated authority as it was
complete. The law as passed merely provided
agents to perform certain administrative acts
which the legislature could not itself conven-
!ently, perform. In regard to the objection
that the commission having been named in the
enough to say that the commissioners were not
strictly officers. Their duties were specific and
limited. Having performed the work designated
they ceased to be in Office"
THE CHEF JUSTICES DISSENT.
From Judge Church's opinion Chief Justice
Edgerton dissents. He says he Is unable to
see that the case nessasily involves a discus
son OF any serious constitutional question; to
him tho proposition seems so plain, so elemen-
tary and tho questions leading up to tho princi-
pal question so thoroughly settled by judicial
decisions and SO uncontested by text writer's,
there is very little chance for discussion.
The question is not as to the power of con-
bAooS OVo1 eue suDJect, DuG having delegated
this power to select and establish and change
the seat of government, to the governor and
legislative assembly, the question is, is there
any. implied authority in those tribunals to
again delegate this duty to any other tribunal,
body or persons.
The chief justice then proceeds atsome length
to show that in the passage of the capital bill
such delegation of power was made, and that
there was no authority for so doing. He ar
yued that the bill as passed was not of itself a
perfect law, as no change could be made until
the commissions s had decidedupon some place
rs the future capital, thus clearly exercising
powers delegated to the governor and legislao
tive assembly; that the commissioners were ap-
pointed for the purpose of doing that very thing
which was essential and absolutely requisite to
effect a change in the seat of government
Undoubtedly, he says, sthis was comforting
upon these defendants powers which required
the exercise of discretion of judgment, Of wis
dom, OF patriotism, and it was putting upon
them the performance of duties expressly en-
Joined upon the governor ndlegislative assem-
bly,"
The chief justice then discusses fully the
question of delegated powers, after which he
takes up various cases o flocation of capitals OF
states and territories, which he maintains arc
not parallel to the case. From the whole
case he concludes that said act of the terri.
tollal legislature was unwarranted andinvalid
and that the judgment of tho district couri
should stand. These two papers were bot1
ably prepared and bound 10 attract wide at
tention. The case seems to have two sides and
each side has strong advocates.