Press and daily Dakotaian. (Yankton, Dakota Territory [S.D.]) 1880-1889, 1885-03-12
THE VETO MESSAGE.
Full Text of the Document.
The Removal Bill a Violation OF The
Constitution.

Executive Office, Bismarck, D. T.,
March 8. lS85-To the Speaker of the
House of Representatives. Sir: 1 have
the honor to return herewith house bill |
No. Z, which has been submitted to me
for my concurrence and approval. This
bill provides for the removal of the capt.
tai from the city of Bismarck to Pierre.
If there are questions of equity involved
in this measure will not now discuss
them. If there is something like retri-
butive justice in this measure, growing |
out of past wrongs, either iancied or
real, I do not here and now consider
them. 1 pass by the question of expense
and taxation in the construction of a |
new building in Pierre. l pass by the
TACT that S2OO,0OO worth of property now
belonging to the territory is donated by
this act to private individuals. I pass
by the allegations of improperly and
charges of corruption which have been
made, to come to the consideration of
the one question: SIS this measure
legal?" We have taken an oath to
support the constitution of the United
States. Srction 10 of article I. OF that
constitution prohibits the passage
OF any law lmpairing the obliga.
tion of contracts. Does the arrange
ment consummated between the agents
OF. the last legislature, as we'll as individ-
uals, come within the constitutional pro.
hibition? Then none of US can break it
if we would, and none would break it in
violation of our oaths if we could. In
the case of Mills vs.. Williams, IL; Ind.
los. Justice Pearson declared that while
there are some grants conferred at the
will of the Legislature, and subject at all
tunes to be modified or repealed, there
are others which assume the nature of
contracts and cannot he molested. 1.-The
Legislature, says the learned justice, "is
not the only party interested, for al.
though it has public purpose to accom-
plish, it chooses to do it by the instrument
tality of a second party. These two
parties make contract. The legisla.
| ture for and IN consideration of certain
labor and outlay of money confers upon
the party OF the second part certain
powers and capacities. The expectation
consideration on one side; that of ex-
i
the other. 1t is a contract, and there.
: fore cannot be modified, changed or an.
I nulled without the consent of both
I parties"
The legislature of 1883 directed {
commission to select site for q capital
and declared that in consideration of q
large amount of money to be paid and
land to be given, said site should become
the permanent seat of government The
wisdom of that law has been much ques.
toned. and it is no part of my duty to
modify, to justify or defend it. 1t is
, sufficient to know that Bismarck was
, chosen; that it accepts the proposition
made by the authority of the legislature
that it paid the money demanded and
: contributed the land required. There is
no allegation that the city has not com.
, piled with the spirit and letter of its
agreement. If the contract was between
individuals no one would question the
, binding force of the obligation. Shall
: the rule be changed because one of the
parties is q great territory with
honor to defend and dignity to maintain Z:
Such an Interpretation, in the words Of
4 the judge above quoted would shocL
the public conscience" "There is not
, one law for the sovereign aud another
for the subject" says Judge Allen (7l
New York 549), "But when the sovereign
engages in business enterprises and
/ contracts with individuals, the rights
. and obligations of the parties must
be adjudged upon tie same
principles as if both parties were private
] persons. A state may repudiate its con
, tracts; it may refuse to perform them
, but its sovereign rights to destroy OF
impair them Is limited by the fedora
constitution. 1t may refuse to respond
] in damage, and leave claimant without
? any remedy. as it may refuse to pay its
bonds, but the obligation remains. Nc
legislative feat can destroy that" Sci
Dunolds vs.. The State; $50, New York
T 36).' The court says: ut has been
, settled SO as to be beyond controversy
that the constitutional provision which
denies to the state the power to pass
laws impairing the obligations of con
tracts applies to oil laws passed within
its limits, contracts made by the state as
we'll as contracts made by individuals
The sovereign can construe, and has
many occasions TO do SO. 1t must be
5 governed by the same rules of common
true that as rule the legislature is
IoOSSASASu oAN AAoy A44OuNy OE uUOllSL
acts of its predecessors, but this rule has
PLAIN exception, and this exception
seems to be itself without an exception
There is no mode" says the court, SIN 6
. case reported in 9th Mclean, l61
by which legislative act can be
1 made irrepealable except that it assumes
the form and substance of o contract
land commenting on this, Judge Cooley
. says: Legislative acts are sometimes
: in substance contracts between the
;. state and the party who is to derive
some right under them, and they are MOI
> less under the protection of the consti
tuition because of having assumed tina
g FORM" (See work on constitutions
t limitations, 1867. The book seems to b,
full of such cases, but Judge Cooley ha
laid down principle in his great wor
on the constitution which seems t
g cover the measure under consideration
e entirely and completely. Says the erea
O commentor, lsee section 1874, story U
- the constitutionl: 1t has been made
question whether 1t the constitutions
% prohibitionl applies to contracts an
n grants created directly by la,
is or made by some authorized agent i
70 pursuance of law. It has been suggeste
that In such cases it is to be deemed a
I n