Bismarck weekly tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1884-1943, 1891-10-09
WHY PERvERT THE TRUTH i?

WHY PERvERT THE TRUTH ?
The Grand Forks Herald and the
jamestown Alert, the papers which first
started the statement that the bennett
warehouse bill was similar to a law now
in operation in South Dakota-which the
TRIBUNE recently proved was incorrect
have attempted a reply to the TR1B-
UNE's article on this question. The OBJ
ject OF the TRIBUNE was to
show the er%roneousness of the statement
made by these journals, and which has
been copied by many of the state papers
without investigation.
It is a curious fact that neither of the
above mentioned papers-the Herald
and Alert-say anything whatever about
this point in their last articles. They
don't even make an excuse for the mis-
statement which they made. Instead,
they publish a lot of silly twaddle about
railroad lobbies, corruption, etc. They
fall back upon the assumption that be-
III the encouragement said the bill
was constitutional the governor should
have signed it. This is assuming that
the encouragement is infallible and
that he is a dictator to the governor and
the legislature. The attorney-general's
powers are merely advisory. If a citizen
goes to an attorney for advice, and he
(the c~itizen) thinks the advice received is
not correct, the probabilities are that he
will not act upon it. Neither does the
legislature or the governor lave to &C.
cept the advice of the encouragement
But if they reject it, they take the re-
s~ponsibility for their actions upon them
selves. The recent opinion Of the attor-
~ney-general upon the wheat-inspection
law-upon which the railroad commits
sioners acted in their futile attempt to
inspect w~heat-ought to prove conclu-
sively that the aforesaid officer is not in
fallible. The Herald's position anent
the said opinion is a little out of line
with its u~tterances in regard to the gov
ernor signing the bennett bill because
the encouragement declared it consti-
%tutional.
The TRIBUNE is quoted by the Alert as
saying that Governor Burke's reason for
vetoing the bill was "because only $1.00
per year rental was allowed for the site
of the little warehouse" This is a good
example of the Alert's gross m%isrepre-
sentation of facts. The TRIBUNE didn't
say anything of the kind. The TRIBUNE
simply published Governor Burke's rea-
sons ror vetoing the bill, which any fair.
minded person will admit are good and
sufficient. His reasons were that Sin his
mind, house bill 154 was clearly uncon-
stitutional."
Suppose the governor had signed the
measure in question, what would have
been the result? On the first attempt to
enforce the law, the railroad company
upon which the attempt was made
would have got out a restraining in
junction upon the parties attempting to
procure a site. The matter would then
have been taken to the courts and the
law would doubtless have been declared
unconstitutional. The only effect the
signing of this bill would have had upon
the farmers of this state would have
been to saddle upon them the costs of
an expensive litigation.
The TRIBUNE 1eiterates the statement
it formerly made, that, "if a bill similar
to the South Dakota law had been passed
by the North Dakota legislature it would
have been a benefit to the farmers of
this state" If the Dennet bill could
have been put in successful operation it
would have given the same result to the
farmers. But the railroads are not going
to give up their property without a strug-
gle, and it was useless for the state to 90
into court to fight them with a defective
law.