Bismarck weekly tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1884-1943, 1892-10-07
attempted to put It into ,
operation, the then Attorney

General of the State and Railroad
Commissioners were not long in be-
coming aware of the fact that this bill
also was imperative. This conclu-
sion, however, was not arrived at UNI
til a number of farmers and others
had constructed platforms along the
right of way railroads doing business
within the State. These farmers
readily found themselves with plat.
forms to load and unload produce,
but the trains passed by as if they
were not there; and they were then in
exactly the same position that the
farmers would have been had Gov.
Burke approved the Elevator and
Warehouse Bill, because farmers and
others would have constructed eleva-
tors for their individual use, and the
railroad companies knew the law
could not be enforced. Gov. Burke
promptly approved the amendment
to the platform bill passed at the
special session OF the Legislature,
and this amendment was such as to
make this platform law operative and
beneficial to the farmers.
Whatever else may be said of Gov.
Burke, it is to his credit that he took
his political life temporarily in his
hands to render the people of the
State justice and fairness, and to save
them the cost OF expensive ltie alton
in attempting to enforce n n unconsti-
tutional act of the Legislature.
This elevator and warehouse act
which Gov. Burke vetoed, said in SO
much English, that without personal
discrimination, and without regard to
capacity, anyone was permitted to
90 on the right of way of any railroad
doing business in the State of North
Dakota, and construct an elevator or
warehouse for the consideration OF
S1.OO. 1t is submitted that it does
not require the education, experience
and acumen of a constitutional law.
yer to determine that such a law as
this could not become operative.
For the purpose of comparison and
that our readers may be prepared to
Judge for themselves as to the differ
ence between the North Dakota and
South Dakota acts W. print herewith
in full theformer and give full analysis
of the various provisions ofthelatter.
The two acts are as wide apart az
the poles, not the slightest similarity
in the purposes or provisions of the
two. The South Dakota actproceeds
under the law of eminent domain pro-
vides for the condemnation of proper
ty by appraisers and that they shall
determine the damage sustained by
said railroad company, not only for
the use but also for the occupancy of
such elevator site. The North Dako-
tn act assumed that the ownership of
the right OF way OF every railroad cor
poration was in the people. The
courts Of this land have decreed that
it is private property and that pri-
waite property cannot be taken for
public use except upon just compens-
alton and by due process OF law. The
process OF law under our code would
he that OF condemnation and if the
railroad company refused to grant a
site for an elevator that was
necessary, upon o proper show
ing to IL court, appraisers would
be appointed, thedanlage assessedand
tne property would be taken for the
purpose required. 1t would then
4 to be the property OF the rail
road company and become the
property o;the elevator or individual.
Ali these features appear in the South
Dakota law, not one OF them is found
in the vetoed North Dakota act.
The latter represents an attempt at
tho conliscation of private property
without compensation. 1t does not
even provide that the site when taken
~l';tll be used for the public, but con-
,crs upon a individual the right to
he it tor his own personal gain with
out regard to public interests. 1t
can properly be designated as a con-
Tiscation act and cannot be justified
either in law or in reason. The news
papers and representatives of the in
dependent element who have persist
ei.tly stated the acts were similar in
intent and method OF procedure have
either ignorantly or maliciously in
tended to deceive the people and in
II 'tice to Gov. Burke, and in common
f"irness to the people of the State
they should retract statements
made in ignorance of the
fncts. We a expect no ex-
PLANTATION or retra tion from @ ma
lclous falsifiers. The people will care
IoI CICIl NOk.' OWL. I've luNlU6 Uu0
Independent of Grand Forks and
other papers which have spread far
and wide their side OF this veto to q
public discussion OF it through their
columns. The more the subject is in
v~estigated and. discussed, the greater
will be The appreciation of Gov.
Burke's judgment in vetoing a meas
ure SO manifestly unconstitutional.
Here are the two acts-examine for
yourselves!
An act to provide for the right Of
erection of grim warehouses and ele-
vators on the right-of-way oi.railroad
corporations and contiguous thereto.
Section /. Every railroad Company
or corporation organized under the
laws OF this State or doing business
therein, shall upon application, per-
NIT any person, company or corpor-
alton for all annual rental of one dol.
lar ($l) to construct, maintain and
operate contiguous to the side tracks,
any elevator or warehouse at any OF
it's regular way stations, to be used
Tor the purpose Of receiving, storing
and handling grain, and such permits.
sion shall be granted without regard