The Dickinson press., 1885-03-14
Section 10 of article 1 Of that constitution pro-

Section 10 of article 1 Of that constitution pro-
h1bits the passage Of any law impairin9
THE OBLIGATION oF CONTRACTS.
Is the arrangement between
agents of the last legislature and the city OF Bis
marck a contract in the meaning of this section?
II it Is, and II Legislatures as we'll as individuals
come in the constitutional prohibition. then
none of lis could break it II We would. and none
Of us would break it in violation of our oaths II
we could. In the case of Mills VS.. Williams. IL
lred, 1O5, Justice Pearson declares that while
there are some grants conferred at the mere will
OF the legislature, and subject at all times to be
modified or repealed, there are others which as
sumo the nature of contracts and cannot be
molcsted.
"Thc legislature" says the learned Justice, "is
not the only party interested, for although it
has q public purpose to accomplish, 1t chooses
to do it by the instrumentality of a second
party. These two parties make a contract. The
legislature. for and i'll consideration of certain
labor and outlay of money, confers on the party
OF the second. part certain powers and capacities.
The expectation Of benefit to the public is the
moving consideration on one side; that of ex-
pcctcd remuneration for the outlay on the
other. It is a contract, and, therefore, cannot be
modified, changed or amended without the con-
Sent OF both parties
The Legislature of 1888 directed a commits
sion to select a site for a capitol, and declared
that in consideration Of a large amount of
money to be paid and land to be given, such a
site should become the permanent sent of gov
eminent" The wisdom of that law has been
questioned, and it is not my duty to modify, to
justify or defend it. 1t is sufficient to know that
Bismarck was chosen: that it accepts the propo-
sition made by authority of the legislature;
that 1t paid the money demanded and contri-
buted the land required. There is no allegation,
l believe, that the city has not complied with
the spirit and letter of it's agreement. If the
contract were hntween individuals M ono yvorJd
question the binding force of the objection for a
moment. Shall the rule be changed because one
OF the parties is q great territory with honor to
defend and dignity to maintain? Such an in
terpretation, in the words of the Judge above
quoted, would
SHOCK THE PUBLIC COINCIDENCE"
There is not one law for the sovereign and
another for the subject" says Judge Allen al
N. Y, 549: but when the sovereign engages in
business enterprises and contracts with individ-
uals. the rights and obligations of the parties
must be adjudged on the same principles as If
both parties were private citizens. A state may
repudIate It's contracts. 1t may refuse to per-
form them; but its SOVEREIGN right to destroy or
impair them is limited by the federal c%onstitu-
tion. 1t may refuse to respond in damages and
leave a claimant without any remedy. as it may
mains. No legislative fiat can destroy that, "
(Sce Duncide vs.. The State, 80 N. Y, 36O.) The
court says: 1T has been settled so as to be beyond
which denies to a state power to pass laws i'm
pairing the obligation OF contracts applies to all
laws passed within it's limits. contracts made by
the state as we'll as contracts made by individ-
uals. The sovereign can contract and has
many occasions to do so. 1t must be governed
b BY the in s a,vian rules Fl C common MN fh,1 honesty n which
legislature is sovereign and may modify or
abolish the act OF It's predecessors, but this rule
las a plain execution and this execution seems
is no mode" says the court in a case
repor,ed in 9Th MCLEAN, iGl, by WHICH
CnlC IL assume the form and cuhptopra ne -
Cooley SAYS: "Legislative acts are sol Sometimes M
the party who is to derive some right under
them, and they are not the less under the pro.
lection of the constitution because of having us.
Limitations ton 1861 The Inc books SCI seem not to lie full q d
such cases, but Judge Cooley has laid down a
principle in his great work on the constitution
which
SEEMS TO COVER THE MEASURE
under consideration, entirely and completely.
Says the great commentator, section 1874,
a question whether it 1.-THE constitutional pro-
hibition) applies to contracts and grants created
directly by law or made by some authorized
gested that in such cases it Is to be deemed an
act of the legislative power, and that all laws
are repealed by the same authority that enacted
them. But it has been decided upon solemn
agreement that contracts or grants made by a
state are not less within the reach of the prohi-
bilion than thai contracts and grants OF private per
SOuo III 1cSlo4dlOle lLdy uldAc u COltTdCU WIFI
aeespsed it G IS equally eaMi a4 Under whea the 1t pro Is
lection Of the constitutions; and it may be
laid down as a general principle that whenevera
law is in it's own nature a contract, and absolute
rights have vested under it, a repeal of that law
cannot divest those rights or annihilate or i'm
this country" continues Judge Storey, would
be warranted in assuming that any state legis-
lature possessed the power to violate and disre-
power, so repugnant to the common priu-
ciples of justice and civil liberty, lurked
under any grant or ought to be implied
of the people" tSee also sections 1889, 1885
1893, 1891 and 1859 In my mind there is nc
doubt but that this bill plainly violates the con.
stitution We have sworn to support. The rule
may be q hard one in some cases and under some
circumstances, but we did not make it and We
did not enact the law which makes It's applica'
case as we find it and act with a solemn regard
for our oath. But it may be asked, has the ter
-it0rv no power to
CHANGE THE LOCATION OF ITS CAPITALI
Undoubtedly. There are certainly ways by
which a state can resume its sovereignty, it be:
ing in the interest of public policy that this
should be done; but it must do justice before il
asks justice. There is another phase of the
question which seems important to be consid.
cred. 1t greatly adds to the difficulties sur
rounding this bill. The act provides that the
paid, and the remaining proceeds distributed
among those who have contributed to the ercc.
tion Of the capitol building. l understand thai
the land OIL which the capitol was built was
decided to the territory by the Northern Pacific
Railroad company for capitol purposes only
that a condition of the grant is that it shall
be devoted solely to such purposes, or, failing
to be so used, shall revert to the granter. Thi!
being SO. the provision for distribution is of M
avail, for there. will be nothing to distribute
with the ground. and the result of this law
would be to enrich this corporation which gave
the land. while the men OF small means VIII
were induced to subscribe tO the fund. and SOM
of whom still owe a large proportion of thei
subscription, must absolutely lose everything
In the same way the provision regarding TIN
assets out OF which these claims cal
be liquidated. I am sure The legislature doe
not desire to place the parties who have had NJ
lot or part in this unfortunate conflict at such
disadvantage. 1t seems to me, apart from
other considerations, that this agitation is un
wise and untlmely; Its inevitable result will b
tracing litigation, Of which the people are tiret
and weary. If I rightly interpret their wishes
they the are saying to us; Let y, us have fair law
est government wherever 1t is administered
and in the name of a patient and long-sufferinf
people let US have peace" ] cannot approve tn
In anticipation of the opening of tho
Sioux reservation, several parties are
organizing for the purpose of attempt
ing the coal exploration of the Morea,
and Grand river counties with the
opening of Spring.
Mr.. Collins of Grand Forks has adopt
ell a plan for winter protection, which
the Plaiudealer thus describes: The
method is to have q blank space AROUND
Az 1,,,., ~ ol>o, t~to,, ~ =. n,.~ ~ :, ~, n,