Press and daily Dakotaian. (Yankton, Dakota Territory [S.D.]) 1880-1889, 1885-03-11


marck to Pierre. He discusses it, as he |
claims, solely upon its legal aspect, but
to that alone he has hardly confined |
himself, and we seriously question |
whether the LEGAL QUESTION was the |
controlling motive upon which he |
reached his conclusions.
He has cited authorities winch he
holds sustain the conclusions at which |
he arrived, but we fear from
the side remarks which he
has seen fit to throw out, that it was
these instead of the preeedents he cites,
that prevented the executive concur
renee.
The precedents, under our view, are
not parallel with this case, and are not |
pertinent in the construction of the
power of the governor and legislature in
its control of the question of removal
The cases cited are, as to the power of a |
legislature under state constitution,
binding itself under contract. OF thie
question, as to the class of contracts re-.
ferred to in the cases cited, there can be
no question that the legislature can bind
the sovereignty as an individual.
Congress has supreme legislative
power over the territories, and the legis.
lative assembly of the territory is under
the control aud at the sufferance of con.
gress. They nave given the territory
it's charter under the organic act, and.
have seen fit in this particular to expires.
sly legislate upon it, and define the
powers upon the subject of removal OF
each succeeding legislature. After
giving tho governor the power
in the first instance, of calling the
legislature sat such time and place as he
shall appoint and direct: ::'-then "At the
first session of the legislature, or as soon
as it may deem expedient. the governor
and legislative assembly shall proceed
to locate the seat of government" Then
follows: But such place shall there.
after be subject to be changed by the
governor and legislative assembly,"
Can it be argued with any reasonable
or fair construction of the above that
the governor and Legislature, with their
power expressly limited as above, can
forever and irrevocably bind the tor.
ritory in this matter. Congress gave the
power to the governor and legislature
Not to any particular governor nor tc
any particular legislature; but gave the
right of removal whenever they might
deem it expedient. This was the charter
or authority under which the attempted
removal was passed by the legislature in
1883, and they had no authority to bind
any future action even if they at
tempted to do 30.
The city of Bismarck or any othel
place, and oil parties, if they attempted
to enter into contract, which we do no
admit, had notice Of the law and inhibi
tion, and the want of power of the gov
ernor and Legislature to bind the terri
tory in any manner whatever, and if the,
entered into it they did SO at their peri
with their eyes open.
The question of good faith is too idl
even to mention, for at the time it was
dark scandal and an action was pending
to test the validity of the very act o
location, and Of the widest notoriety.
| The governor urges further reason
that the property would revert to th
Northern Pacific railroad by reason O
the condition in the deeds tina
it should be used for capita
purposes only. Is this substantial
reason to urge' Shall the terrltor
be caught in trap set for her by dis
honorable commission, and town an,
railway company the only parties ii
interest? Does the governor not convic
himeelf of neglect of duty in not seein
that "GooD AND SUFFICIENT DEEDS T.
THE TERRITORY FOR THE PROPERTY wer
not procured before issuing his procla
nation to the territory, giving notice o
the gift and designating Bismarck q
the capital.
To push the argument of the veto t
its legitimate conclusion, it would follow
that as the people Of Bismarck made th
donation to Dakota with its present tel
ritorial limits and considered the prof
pective advantages as capital for tn
whole territory, that now no poWe
would be able to divide the territory an
rob Bismarck of one-half the benefit
anticipated from her donation, and fo
all time We could be but beneficiarie
to the interests of Bismarck and th
N. P. railroad.
We do not believe that the people {
Dakota will sympathize with the COVE,
nor's concluding prayer for PEACE o
such basis. We do not deny that Go,
Pierce had the legal right to interpos
the veto power in this instance, but
doing so he should not have attempted I
Justify it upon such eroundless and ul
tenable basis. And We think it woul
have comported better with executiy
!. duty, as the matter of removal by tt
last legislature had been referred bac
, to the people, and was an issue in tt
last election, that his judgment or pr
vate caprice should not have been set u
In antagonism to the direct will OF th
people az expressed at the polls.
Rev. Joseph Ward has declined Il