Bismarck weekly tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1884-1943, 1891-10-09
A KNOCK OUT BLOW,

u bp6Cldk Ill VNluu6ADOllb 4T1Ouu6s
Tae Grand Forks Herald and the jamestown
Alert charg, Governor Burke with vetoine the
bennett warehouse bill. after Attorney General
Spencer's opinion cannot be- had, but the first
line reads: This bill is of doubtful c%onstitu-
tionallty:" The opinion does not pronounce the
sofa bill, held unconstitutional by the supreme
court. 1t will be q leading issue in the next state
election.
In the controversy in regard to the
bennett warehouse bill the TRIBUNE
took for granted the assumption of the
Grand Forks Herald and Jamestown
Alert that the attorney general had de-
clared the aforesaid bill constitutional,
because he advised the governor to sign
it. It was a natural deduction to infer
that he must have thought the bill con-
stitutional or he would not have advised
the governor to sign it. But since the
appearance of the above special the TR1B-
uNE has looked up the records
and finds that it is substan-
TALLY correct. The TRIBUNE has
already proved that the Herald and Alert
made a gross misrepresentation in saying
that the bennett bill was similar to a
law now in operation in South Dakota,
and NOW it can prove that these two great
guardians of the public veal have pro-
mulgated another falsehood. To do this
it is only necessary to quote the first
sentence of the attorney generals opin
ion, which reads as follows: II AM IN
DOUBT AS TO THE coNsT1TUT1oNAL1TY
OF THIS BILL
Perhaps the Herald can explain why it
said: "The bill vas carefully examined by
the encouragement, and in his opinion
pronounced constitutional" And the
Alert may also like to tell the dear peo-
ple-of whom 1t is such a champion just
now-why it published the statement
that "the encouragement said it was a
constitutional measure"
While the TRIBUNE is correcting the
mis-statements of it's hayward brethren,
it may as we'll make a few more explana-
tions. In the Herald's article occurs the
following:
1t is a further fact and peculiarly significant
that this bill was held by the governor until the
very last day of the fifteen days limited by the
constitution.
This is correct. The reason for this
was because the encouragement left the
city Immediately after the legislature
adjourned, and did not return until the
fifteen days had almost expired. He
then gave the governor his opinion, and
on the same day the governor filed his
veto. The Herald further says:
1t is also a fact, that during this period of
tation with a well-known elevator attorney and
also with Judge Francis, the attorney of the
Northern Pacific railrt ad.
It is a fact that the governor and
Judge Francis we're in frequent consul
tation during the fifteen days spoken of.
The reason for this is that the attorney
general left the city Immediately after
the legislature adjourned and notified
the governor that he had appointed
Judge Francis to act in his stead during
his absence.
Governor Burke is not worrying about
the malicious and untruthful statements
which have been made about his motives
for vetoing this bill, knowing that the
people will sustain him in his action,
which saved the state the costs of a use-
less and expensive litigation. When the
proper time comes for him to render an
account of his public actions he will ha
able to give a full and satisfactory ex-
explanation of every official act.