The Kimball graphic. (Kimball, Brule County, Dakota [S.D.]) 1883-1905, 1884-06-06

S Wnoio tncy nave SINCE remained. Th6
secretary ana treasurer of tho territory have thus
Iar failed to comply with the order and have
lsSA,hea Their respective snices at Yanktor,
since the recent decision IT the supreme court
lt Ii not supposed these officials will openly DENY
tne law and persist In their disobedience of the
eSecntive order mentioned. The capitol build
ing has been completed in all respects, except as
70 interior finish and the putting in Of the doors
anu windows. Preparations for this work have
peen IN progress for several weeks, the work will
De com within the nextfew DAYS and the
building ready for occupancy by all the depart
lnents, OF the territorial government, including
the legislature, within the next thirty DAYS. As
admit OF occupancy, it will become the duty
OF Inc governor. under the law, to
Issue a proclamation declaring that fact,
and upon che issuance OF suol proclamation tho
territorial officers will be required to obey it.
Should any refnse-which is wholly improbable
proper judicial proceedings to compel obedi-
been industriously circulated by the enemies of
the capital renewal to the effect thst the build
ing at bismarck has not been paid for. l have
the bsst authority for totally denying these
statements. The contribution by tho citizens
OF and the proceeds of the sales of lots
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
ang IN . durable and handsome manner, so that
the capitol, when turned over to the territorial
government, will not have cost the people one
penny. l might add, further. that a weeks stay
At iankton has convinced me that the greater
1 polsiOhs oSVu y Vie TtSlQ0NIA VI tu0U DlaCe.
have acquiesoed in the removal and that only u
few noisy mischief makers. who wish to create
and continue a state OF uncertainty in the pub
lie mind. arc inclined to bring further resist
ahce.
THE LEGAL STATUS AND DECISION.
originally there were two objections made to
act designated the commissioners instead of
providing for their appointment by the gov
ernor, by and with tho advice and consent Of the
territorial council; second, that the legislature
| WIS reOUired nv the OrUanir law Of the territory
to specifically designate the site OF the capital,
and could not avail itself of the services of a
commission to make such selection. The first
objection was The one most strsnuously urged
against the act in the district court before
Judge Eugerton), but in the supreme court that
point was virtually abandoned and the efforts Of
counsel for Yankton were concentrated upon the
second objection, relating to the delegation Of
power. No adyices are yet at hand as to whether
From the usual procedure Of the court iu the
disposition Of cases, 1t is improbable that the
opinion has as yet been written. Most prob
ably the decision waa announced in open court
and the case assigned to one Of tho
Judges composing the majority, for preparation
of the opinion. The opinion must necessarily
employ n commission to select a site for the
capital and to designate the members of such
commission by name, az commissioners for doing
administrative acts of this character are not
treated by the courts as officers within the in
tent of Unconstitutional provisions requiring all
ohlcers OF a state or territory, as me case may
be, to be appointed. It's 6nestioL, IN fact, was
no longer open for consideration in the Dakota
supreme court, as the supreme court of the
United States, its immediate superior, settled
II 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 indi-
vidual states and territories.
WASHINGTON AS A CASE IN POINT.
The capital of the United States was located
In thic >yuu rrpurnSs rrnyilaA fnr. a npDtr pia.
sion which should select 4 tract OF ground, not
exceeding ten miles square, and declared that
the district so selected should be the seat of
government of the United States. The commits
sion was afterward appointed and performed its
duties by selecting the tract of ground, ten
miles square. atterward designated Tho Dis
trict of Columbia" This act. liking the seat of
the United States government Mt q point to be
subsequently, designated by a commission, re-
| manned the sole act locating the seat Of the
federal government until the enactment OF the
United States revenue statutes in 1873. Tho
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 rted to
probably u Thousand times in the location Of
state institutions and county seats. In con-
clusion, | may say the decision of the supreme
court at 1an&ton 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 Legislature. or until the supreme
court of the United States shall have decided
otherwise. The former is wholly improbable,
the latter impossible.
VIEWS OF ATTOhNEf GENERAL HUGHES.
To a reporter of the Sioux City Journal,
| Attorney General Hughes, of Dakota. said:
It was claimed thai 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. Tie selec-
ton OF Washington as the capital is a case
directly in point. There arc 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-mtnded court could render
such a decision"
Il understand that the Yanlton 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,
and. as l said, ! think the Yankton party will
not follow up the appeal, The territorial off-
to Bismarck, Will, l suppose, do SO. as they are
law-abiding citizens. The people OF Dakota
generally will accept the decision as final. which
in effect it is"
Will the capital commission question go into
turc?-
There is. since the decision. no question of
that kind to 20 into politics. The yankton ring,
! suppose. will endeayor to keep up the quarrel.
but DdHOIa people EeHtTdily nave no interest IN
keeping up the fight, il there were one to keer
up, and will accept the decision as valid and
authoritative
Decisions of the Territorial Supreme Court
nt the sessiun Just Closed.
YASKToN, Oak. Special Telegram, Nav 21.
Following are the decisions of the supreme
court of Dakota, which has Just closed its
session:
Ambrose G. Biercc, respondent, vs.. First Ma
tional Bank of Deadwood. Reversed, and new
trial ordered.
United Slater, plaintiff in error, VS.. James E.
Robinson, defendant in error: appeal from the
Third district. Continued.
Fisher, alias Welfare, alias Fairwell, defendant
In error; appeal from the Third district. Judg-
Alfred 6. Davis, respondent, va. Charles F.
Rossteuscher, appellant; appeal from Yankton
county. Dismissed.
w. H. Hicky, respondent, vs.. b. b. Richard.
z%ra asat'An'' appear IRON A'hn'hAh' county:
William Galley, respondent, VS.. E. H. Palmer.
appellant; appeal from Cass county. Continued.
Duane Mowry, assignee, appellant. vs.. D.. L.
Glidden, respondent: appeal from Ainnehaha
county; Reversed, and new trial ordered.
9: W. Forbes, plainttn and respondent, vs..
ants and appellants; appeal from Lawrence
county. Continued to the next term.
Territory of Dakota ex rel, John A. Burbank,
respondent, VS.. Halver Knudson ct al, Board 81
County Commissioner of Union County. appel
lsnts: appeal from Union county. Affirmed, and
stayed for rcarRument for next term.
Territory of Dakota on the Information Of E,
O.. Smith, District Attorney for the Second Judi
cial District, VS.. Milo W. Scott ct al; appeal
from Yankton county. Reversed, and ordered tc
enter Judgment on pieadinss; Justices Church
Hudson and Palmer asserting, and Justice Edg.
erton dissenting.
Barbara c. Mulcahev, plaintiff in error, VS.. ASS
Fisher and C.. P. Nulcahey, defendants In error;
appeal from Burleigh county. Dismissed.
Northern Pacific Railroad Company, appellant,
VS.. liver s. Rockney, treasurer Of Trail county,
respondent. Affirmed.
Henry r. Porter, plaintiff and respondent, vs.
John Ashland, defendant and appellant; appeal
from Burlcigh county. Dismissed without preju.
dice.
Robert Hawke, respondent, VS.. Dolph Edwards
appellant; Robert Hawke. respondent, VS.. Ed.
ward Huffenbach. appellant. Affirmed.
Archibald Semple ct al, plaintiff and respond.
| ant "a II Raraes ct al defendant and arl,el.