The Dickinson press., 1884-05-31

retained their respective ofhoes at Yanktsn.
Il h'h Is not cts supposed arSsas these oasoisls viii eseaiy deny
the law and persist in their disohedience Of the
executive order mentioned. The capitol build
to tof in aas Sse iin isn and the = p Ut 1sn IN Of the shased. o.rs
and windows. Preparations for this work have.
been in progress for several weeks. the work will
building ready for occupancy ~ ali tie depart-
ments, Of the territorial government, including
the legislature. within the next thirty days. Al
s sSsa as ~ ne eoe euild,ss + Y spfa'1 sssaye a1 eha dvt TO
issue a Proclamation dselaztnE that fact.
s sna 1gGa s as6a assa' Miii q BE- sa s.od 1fedl1 10 sSs1 IT. Il.
Should any r~efuse-which is wholly improbable
proper judicial proceedings to compel ebedi-
been industriously circulated by the enemies Of
the capital removal to the effect that the build
ing at Bismarck has not been paid for. I have
statements. The contributor, BY tho oiti1ens
Of Bismarck and the proceeds Of the sales Of lets
already made have been sufficient to pay for the
real estate, at the disposal Of the commissioners,
remains unsold to finish and furnish the build
ing in a durable and handsome manner, SO that
the soes capitol, w ns1 1 1ofn Ssv ever eo. 70 thu see p ssa,lsee one
penny. 1 might add. further. that a weeks stay
at Yankton has convinced mo that the greater
BsTa ssos Stsa q in .s tie 1 rsmC1si .s q t anas Ply aiiss :
few noisy mischief makers. who wish to create
and continue a state Of uncertainty n the pub
lie mind. are inclined to bring further rse1st-
ance.
THE LEGAL STATUS N DECISION. :
Originally there were two objections made TO
the validity of the removal act; first. that the
providing for their appointment by tbs gev-
ernor, by and with the advice and consent OF the
territorial council: second, that the legtalature
to specifically designate tho site Of the capital,
and could not avail itself Of the services Of .
commission to make such selection. The first
against the act in the district court (beforo
Judge Edgerton), but in the supreme court that
point was virtually abandoned and the efforts OF
second objection, relating to the delegation Of
power. No advices are yet at hand % to whether
or not the opinion of the court has been written.
disposition OF cases, it is improbable that the
opinion has rs yet been written. Most prob
ably the decision was announced In open court
and the case assigned to one OF the
judges composing the majority, for preparation
Of the opinion. The opinion must necessarily
set forth that the legislature was authorized to
capital and to designate the members of such
commission by name, as commissioners for doing
administrative acts Of this character are not
treated by the courts as officers within the in
tent of constitutional provisions requiring all
officers of q state or territory, as the case may
be, to be appointed. This question, IN fact, was
uO lOuEc1 olCu " SOASlSlok&GAOA IA ShO OoAOon
supreme court, as the supreme court Of tho
United States, its immediate superior, settled
it some years since. Upon the other PROPOSE
ton, namely, the use of a commission to select
the site, the court must have felt itself bound
by the very respectable number Of precedents
which have been set by the congress Of the
United States and by the legislatures of tndi-
vidual states and territories.
WASHINGTON AS A CASE IN POINT.
The capital of the United States was located
in this way. Congress provided for a commits
sion which should select a tract of ground, not
exceeding ten miles square, and declared that
the district so selected should be the seat of
sion was afterward appointed and performed its
duties by selecting the tract of ground, ten
miles square, a%ftsrward designated The Dis.
trict Of Columbia" This act, fixing the seat Of
the United States government at a point to be
subsequently designated by n commission, re-
manned the sole act locating the scat Of the
federal government until the enactment of the
United States revenue statutes in 1873. The
example thus set by congress has been copied
by several Of the states and territories in re-
spect to their capitals, and has been res yrted to
probably q thousand times in the location of
state institutions and county seats. In con-
clusion. may say the decision of the supreme
court at Yankton fixes the seat Of the govern
ment OF Dakota Territory at Bismarck, there to
remain until it shall have been removed else
where by the legislatnre, or until the supreme
otherwise. The former is wholly improbable,
the latter impossible.
VIEWS Of ATTORNEY GENERAL HUGHES
To a reporter of the Sioux City Journal,
Attorney General Hughes, of Dakota, said:
1t was claimed that the law on which the COM
mission was appointed was unconstitutional. To
this the counsel OF the commissioners answer
that from the location of the capital of the
United States at Washington by a commission
down to the location of the capital of Dakota at
Bismarck there is an unbroken line of prece-
dents on the side Of the commission. The selec-
tion of Washington as the capital is q case
directly in point. There are a thousand cases,
all involving the same principle, and all in favor
Of the commission.
"On what grounds did Judge Edgerton decide
against the legality Of the declsion?"
Only Judge Edgerton knows. He gave no
reasons for his decision. There are no grounds
on which any fair-mindcd court could render
will an appeal be taken?"
"Annderstand that the Yankton party has
given notice of an appeal, but this is only for
effect. They will not follow it up"
What will be the effect of the decision?-
The decision stands as law until reversed,
not follow up the appeal. The territorial Off
GERS, who have not already moved their Offices
to Bismarck, will, suppnose, do 50. as they are
generally will accept the decision as final, which
in effect it is"
will the capital commission question GO into
the coming election of members of the legisla-
ture?"
that kind to 20 into politics. The Yankton ring,
1 suppose, will endeavort to keen up the Quarrel
But Dakota people generally have no interest in
keeping up the fight, if there were one to keel
up, and will accept the decision as valid and
authoritative.
Decisions of the Territorial Supreme Court
at the Session just Closed.
YANKToN, Oak. Special Telegram, May "a.
Following are the decisions of the supreme
court of Dakota, which has Just closed it's
session:
Ambrose G. Biercc, respondent, VIZ. First Na-
tional Bank of Deadwood. Reversed, and new
United States, plaintiff in error, vs.. James E.
Robinson, defendant in error: appeal from the
Third district. Continued;
United States, plaintiff in error, VIC. Little
Fisher, alias Welfare, alias Fairwell, defendant
in error; appeal from the Third district. Judg-
ment reversed.
Alfred c. Davis, respondent, vs. Charles F.
county. Dismissed.
W. II. Hicky, respondent, vs.. B. B. Richard.
son, appellant; appeal from Minnehaha county
William Galley, respondent, vs. E. II. Palmer,
appellant: appeal from Cass county. Continued.
Dnane Mowry, assignee, appellant; vs.. p. J.
Glidden, respondent: appeal from Minnehahs
county: Reversed, and new trial ordered.
G. W. Forbes, plaintiff and respondent, vs.
Frederick Driscoll and Matthew Foley, defend.
county. Continued to the next term.
Territory of Dakota ex rel, John A. Burbank
=Ts aIstH Gam vs. aalvsr knT qin'on e. al; Board 2
lants; appeal from Union county. Affirmed, ant
stayed for ~reargument for next term.
Territory Of Dakota on the Information of E
cial District, We. Milo w. Scott ct al: appea
from Yankten county. Reversed, and ordered t.
enter judgment on pieadings; Justices Church
Hudson and Palmer asserting, and Justice Edg
erton dissenting.
Barbara G. Mulcahev, plaintiff in error, VS.. As,
Fisher and c: I. Mulcahey, defendants In error
Northern Pacific Railroad company, appellant
vs.. liver S. Rockney, treasurer Of Trail county
respondent. Affirmed.