Jamestown weekly alert. [volume] (Jamestown, Stutsman County, D.T. [N.D.]) 1882-1925, 1892-01-14

mate OF that part OF the U clted States ls
a great barrier to it's populous settle
mept."
THE COUNTY'S COUNSEL
Writes Concerning the Tax Decision
In Favor of Stutsman County.
District Attorney ConkIin has received
letter from Judge Dillon, general coun
sci for the Union Pacific railway, New
York, relating to the Stutsman county
tax case, recently decided in favor of the
county. No new matters are referred to
not heretofore prlnted by The Alert.
Speaking of the dispatch in which COM
plete victory for the counties of Stuts.
man and Cass was announced, Judge
Dillon says: 1.-The dispatch does not
overstate the situation. The courts de-
cision is radical and must end this con.
troversy in favor of the counties. The
opinions were delivered in both cases by
the chief justice and the court was unan-
imous. In the Cass. cornty case the
court decides in accordance with the
position taken in our printed brief, that
the record presented no federal question
and that the judgment of the supreme
court of North Dakota was final on the
question involved. In the Stutsman
county case the court decides that it is
it's duty to accept and follow the decision
of the supreme court of North Dakota in
case Of Tyler vs.. Cass county; and on
this ground it reverses the judgment OF
the territorial court. The opinions we're
not IN print when I left Washington or !
should have procured them. As the
chief Justice read the opinions in the
Stutsman county case, think he added
that the court approved of the doctrine
asserted 10 the Cass county case, as we'll
as making the statement that the court
would accept and follow it,"
Judge Dlllon's bill for legal services
for the county IN the Wallace tax case is
S1.325, of which $500 have been paid.
The fee agreed upon was 1000, and ex-
penses, 1926 of the bill being included
as such. 1t was arranged, however, by
the commissioners to buy into the suit of
Tyler vs.. Cass county, which involved a
point highly necessary to the success Of
the Stutsman county case. The amount
being but $l8 in controversy in the Tyler
case, it was thought this county would
not not notice the importance of getting
a decision from the state supreme court;
but the Stutsman people were aware of
tho weight such decision would bring,
il in their favor. and so agreed to pay
part of the expenses of that case, and
when District Attorney Frye was in Office
he was instructed by the commissioners,
on the advice of Judge Rose, to make ar
rangements to that effect, which he did,
the county expending some $3.50 in the
expenses of that suit. How we'll that
judgment has been sustained IS seen
from the letter of Mr.. Dillon above. The
state supreme court decided in favor Of
Cass county, and as that case together
with the Stutsman case, was appealed to
the United States supreme court the de.
cision of the state court was a winning
card for this county, as the chief justice
said their court accepted and followed
the ruling of the state court in the Tyler
case It is not improbable, but that the
decision in the Cass county case was the
turning point in favor Of the decision
which has saved to this county so many
thousands of dollars. The county officers
can be congratulated at the pluck and
determination with which this case has
been fought, after all overturee for set
Element by compromise were refused.
The state supreme court can also feel
complimented at the view taken of theiI
decision on this important case by the
court OF last resort. There has been q
decided tendency to crlticlse adversely
some Of the recent decisions Of the state
court. but such decided mark of "p
proval az the above will 60 long ways
towards repairing any popular notions
that may have become prevalent regard
ing the work of the first supreme bench
OF North Dakota.
Talk about sewing machines, none o.
$(,ovr, aro IN II nth tho 0Qtn n6orA - r