The Dickinson press., 1892-10-15
The Author Of the Elevator Bill Let's
Some Light on the Subject.

The Author Of the Elevator Bill Let's
Some Light on the Subject.
Hon. Fred bennett OF Cavalier
county, the member Of the legislature
who introduced and championed the
elevator bill, vetoed by Governor
Burke, in response to a letter written
by a North Dakota voter, replies as
follows:
DEARsIR:- So many conflicting and
mistakenreportsha have appeared oflate
concerning House Bill 1854, generally
known as the "Dennett Warehouse
Bill" it's constitutionality, its pur-
port and its wording, that a correct
history OF the measure, should in all
justice to those concerned and at
tackled, be given publicity at this
time.
Governor Burke has been blamed
for using his veto power in connection
with this measure. In view OF the
fact that the provision i'll the bill
upon which he based his reasons for
voting were identical with that in the
Minnesota law, declared-as l subse-
quently found-unconstitutional by
the Minnesota courts, it is easily seen
that he had the right on his side in
this matter. The bill was presented
for his approval on the last day Of
the session; the only thing he could,
as Executive, do, was to treat the bill
OH its merits, and, knowing the fate
of the Minnesota law, anticipate the
inevitable action OF the Courts. l
have of late beenin receipt ofopinions
uponthis bill and they have been unan-
imously against its constitutionality.
1t is therefore unjust to Governor
Burke that any blame should attach
to him for his action in this matter.
In drawing upthe measure Iendeav-
ored to gain counsel of q legal charac-
ter, but was unsuccessful in so doing.
Information reached me from some
quarter, that a bill, similar to the
one wished, existed in Minnesota and
was enforced; che information was
given by some one WHO was not aware
of the actual circumstances. The
Minnesota law provided me with the
part OF the bill which introduces the
$1.OO fee; the latter portion suggested
ACoSaA ~ AiAO OANVA " oSOAu eAlS UAAAA
Guilty of a refusal, under the plea of
interfering with the "safe operation Of
the road" this being the basis Of a
refusal made to an application for
room on the ~right-of-way in a case of
which had personal c%ognizance.
A suggestion made by me previous to
the opening of the session and sub
mitted to influential men, who were
in favor of legislation of a kindred
character, viz: that an assessment be
made in order to hire a reputable
lawyer during the whole of the ses-
sion to render advise on matters of
this kind had received no notice.
Had this been done, the flaw in the
drawing of this bill would have been
avoided and much good ensued, be-
cause a measure similar to the South
Dakota law would have been passed.
House Bill No. 1874 was not plat
form bill; it was to provide for the
right of leasing land upon the right
os-way for the erection of Farmers
Warehouses.
The report that this bill was identi-
cal in form with the South Dakota
bill introduced during a cotemporane-
Gus session is erroneous. They are
widely different. The South Dakota
laws conforms to the adjudications of
the courts.
Ignorance of the Inv is no excuse,
and ignorance of constitutional pro-
visions is equally objectionable, but
that too many stones may not be
thrown at my legislative house, l
would suggest that there will be many
next January, who will find that,
with the best intentions in the world,
there are many stumbling blocks in
the law-making path.
So many conflicting stories have
gone forth that this may be a timely
explanation of the Warehouse Bill"
Respectfully,
FRED bennett.
No member more jealously guarded
the farming interests than did Mr..
bennett. He constantly labored for
their interests.
He now recognizes the mistake in
passing this law. Shall we continue
to condemn Gov. Burke for his 10y.
atty to the constitution and his oath
of office?
/. Why not in a manly way rebuke
those political assassins who would
] sacrifice the constitution, the majesty