The pioneer express. [volume] (Pembina, Dakota [N.D.]) 1883-1928, 1885-03-20

uas v. ana u legislatures - well ~ individuals
come in the constitutional prohibition, then
none of NJ could break IL II we would, and none
II NJ would break 1t in violation Of our oaths II
~ could. In tho case Of Mills Va Williams, IL
.rod, los, Justice Pearson declares that while
there arc some grants conferred at the mere Will
ef the le2tssture, and subject at all times to be
modified or repealed, there are others which ss.
sumo the nature Of contracts and cannot be
molested.
The 1 lesissture ssys The learned Justice -!s
pus se III e SSso.s
to do Il by the instrumentality of . second
party. These Two parties make CONTRACT The
labor and outlay q money, confers ON the party
q the second part certain powers and capacities
Tho expectation Of benefit to the public is tho
pected enumeration for the outlay ON the
other: is . contract. and, therefore, cannot be
ene o SosS SSS,nSsa OF without the con-
Tho legislature Of 1883 directed Q commits
sion to select site for . capitol, and declared
that in confederation Of large amount of
money to be paid and land to be given, such q
site should become the permanent seat Of GOV
ernment." The wisdom Of that law has been
questioned. and II is not my duty to modify. to
Justify or defendtt. It IL sufficient to know that
Bismarck was chosen: that 1t accepts the propo-
sttion made by authority Of the legislature;
| that 1t paid the money demanded and contri-
buted the land required There is no allegation,
believe. that the city has not complied with
the spirit and letter Of its agreement. II tho
contract were between individuals no one would
moment Shall the rule be changed because one
Of the parties ts great territory with honor to
defend and dignity to maintain? Such an in
depreciation, In the words Of the judge above
quoted, would
SHOCK TIE PUBLIC CONSCIENCE"
There 10 not one law for the sovereign and
Snother for the subject SAYS Judge Allen al
business enterprises and contracts with individ-
uals. the rights and obligations Of the parties
must be ad1udged on the same principles as II
both parties were private citizens. A state may
.epudnte tts contracts. It may refuse to per-
form them; but its SOVEREIGN right to destroy or
Impair them is limited by the federal constitu-
ton. 1t may refuse to respond In damages and
leave . claimant without any remedy. Us It may
refuse to pay its bonds: but the obligation re-
ss TSs State ss 60 sS shH ss
court says: 1T has been settled so as to be beyond
controversy that the constitutional provision
pairing the Obligation Of contracts applies to ali
laws passed within its limits. contracts made by
the state as we'll rs contracts made by individ-
many occasions to do SO. 1t must be governed
shS .es e honesty which
legislature IL sovereign and may modify or
abolish the act Of its predecessors, but this rule
has plain exception and this exception seems
70 be q, Itself sell, without an an exception. There
reported in 9Th MCLEAN. l6l, "by which
legislative act can be made irrepealable except
snnt It assume tho form and substance Of
IN substance contracts between the state and
them. and they arc not the less under the % pro.
lection OF tho constitution because Of having
s1msd that form. see Work on Constitutional
HNCh hnt In60A GnOnv has laid n
principle in his great work on tho constitution
SEEMS 10 COVER THE MEASURE
under consideration, entirely and completely.
sn' Se
hibtttonl applies to contracts and grants created
directly by law or made by some authorized
agent In pursuance Of law It has been sug-
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 q
state are not less within the reach Of the prohi-
bition than contracts and grants OF private per-
sons: son The Legislature may make contract with
seoepsea Il equally 'na under when tho 1t pra. !.
lection Of the constitution; and it may be
rights have vested under 1t, repeal Of that law
cannot divest those rights Or annhilate or i'm
be warranted in assuming that any state iegis-
istnre possessed the power to violate and disre
power. SO repugnant to tho common prin-
ciples Of Justice and civil liberty. lurked
under % any grant or ought to be implied
from any general expression Of the will
OF the people" tSee also sections 1889, 1885,
1393. 1894 aud 1851 In my mind there is no
doubt but that this bill plainly violates the CON
stftuttOn we have sworn to support The rule
may be hard one In some cases and under some
circumstances. but we did not make ft and we
did not enact the law which makes its applica-
caee as we find IL and act with = solemn regard
for our oath. But It may be asked, has the ter
rttory no power to
CHANGE THE LOCATION OF ITS CAPITAL?
Undoubtedly. There are certainly ways by
which 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 it
asks justice There is another phase of the
question which seems important to be consld-
cred. It greatly adds to the difficulties sur
rounding this bill The sst provides that the
paid, and tho remaining proceeds distributed
among those who have contributed to the cree
tion II the capitol building. I understand that
the land on which the capitol was built was
decided to the territory by the Mort hern Pacific
Raiiroad company for capitol purposes only;
to be 80 used. shall revert to the granter. This
being 30. the provision for distribution is of no
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 who
| were induced to subscribe to the fund. and some
of whom still owe q large proportion of their
subscription, must absolutely lose everything.
In the same way the provision regarding the
PAYMENT OF debts contracted by the commits
sioa is idle. because there will be no
be liquidated. I am sur the legislature does
not desire to place the l..rties who have had no
lot or part in this unfortunate conflict at such
other considerations, that this agitation is I'M
wise and untimely. Its inevitable result will he
to plunge the territory into renewed and dis
and weary. If rightly interpret their wishes,
they are saying to us: Let us have fair laws
wherever they are enacted: let us have an hon
| and tn the name Of patient and long suffering
people let us have peace. ] cannot approve the
bill [Signed.1 GILBERT A. PIERCE. Governor
BISMARCK, OAK, Special Telegram, March
1o-As everybody expected, the house sl,s-
ta1ned the governors veto Of the capital re.
movsl bill After an animated debate, the vote
was ordered
The vote stood 20 to 20 in favor of
psssinR over ths vetn The vote was:
Ayes-Barnes, Bayard Blakemore, Dawson.
Gregg. Helvig, Larson, Myron, Miller, Martin,
Mccall. ParshalL, Pickler. Riddell. SouthwicE,
Sswanton. Smith, sprague, Van Osdel. J. r.
Noes-Clark. Coe, Dewoody. Eldridee, Hunt
inRton. Huston. Hobart. Hutchinson, johnson,
Pugh. Runkle. Roach. Steele Stevens, Stebbins.
Scott, Stewart, Strong. Williams, Mark Ward,
speaker Rice
The council committee reported recon-
mending that the council recede from the
amendment to Pickler's woman suffrage bill
submitting the question to a vote of the peo-
pie In November The report was adopted,
and the bill passed by . vote of Ia to 10 as
the bil! now stands unlimited suffrage is
exact views on the subject are is not known,
but inasmuch as he told Picker recently that
he should bring cold, hard facts to bear in
MS reconsideration, 1t IL quite generally believed
returned to the house to-day with his veto
the bill appropriating $15. 600 for the Cen.
tral Dakota university at Ordway
BILLS INTRODUCED IN THE COUNCIL.
BY Mr.. Wells, amending chap. 45, laws of
fnn ko,,n