The Dickinson press. (Dickinson, Stark County, D.T. [i.e. N.D.]) 1883-1927, 1892-10-01

lN, DlAhA w., NOhld
in attempting to enforce an 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
60 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
$l.OO. 1t is submitted that it does
not require the education, experience
and acumen OF q 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 We print herewith
in full theformer andgive full analysis
of the various provisions ofthelatter.
The two acts are as wide apart as
the poles, not the slightest similarity
in the purposes or provisions OF the
two. The South Dakota act proceeds
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-
ia 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-
vate 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
be that OF condemnation and if the
railroad company refused to grant
site for an elevator that was
necessary, upon proper show
ing to a court, appraisers would
be appointed, the edamage assessedand
the property would be taken for the
purpose required. 1t would then
cease to be the property OF the rail-
road company and become the
property ftheelevator or individual.
All 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
the contiscation OF private property
without compensation. 1t does not
even provide that the site when taken
shall be used for the public, but con-
fers upon an individual the right to
use it ror MS. own personal gain with
out regard to public interests. 1t
can properly be designated as q con-
fiscation act and cannot be justified
either in law or in reason. The news
papers and representatives OF the in
dependent element who have persist
emily stated the acts were similar in
intent and method OF procedure have
either isnorantly or maliciously in
tended to deceive the people and in
Justice to Gov. Burke, and in common
fairness to the people OF the State
they should retract statements
made in ignorance of the
facts. We can expect no en-
planatiQn or retra, tion from ma
licious falsifers. The people will care
for them Nov. sth. We invite the
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
vestigated and discussed, the greater
will be The appreciation OF Gov.
Burkes Judgment in vetoing o meas
ure so manifestly unconstitutional
Here are the two acts-examine for
yourselves!
An act to provide for the right OF
vators on the right-of-way OF 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 an annual rental OF one dol.
lar (Sl) 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
for the purpose OF receiving, storing
and handling grain, and such permis-
sion shall be granted without regard
to the capacity OF such elevator or
warehouse and without discrimina-
ton as to persons, and in order or
application, and such railroad COM
pany shall also provide reasonable
side track facilities and running con.
nection between it's main track and
elevators and warehouses, upon or
contiguous to its rights OF way, at
such stations, and every such rail-
road corporation shall permit connec-
tions to be made and maintained in @
reasonable manner withits side tracks
to and from any warehouse or eleva-
tor, without reference to it's size or
capacity, where grain is or may be
stored.
Provided, that this shall not be
constructed SO as to require any rail-
road company to construct or furnish
any side track off from its own land;
provided further, however, that such
elevators and warehouses shall not
be constructed within 100 feet of any
existing structure, and shall be at
safe fire distance from the station
buildings, and so as not to essential
ly conflict with the safe and conven-
lent operation of the road; Provided
further, thatif the railroad companies
refuse to allow the construction,
maintenance corporation OF any such
elevator or warehouse, alleging that
said elevator or warehouse does essen
italy conflict with the safe and con-
venient operation of the road, then,
upon notice of the ecomplaintfrom the
proprietor or proprietors OF such
elevators or warehouse, the board of
railroad commissioners shall investi-
gate the alleged reasons, and deter
mine whether or no the refusal OF the
railroad companies to allow them
construction, maintenance or opera
tion of such elevators or warehouses
be based upon justitiable causes. The
decision Of the board OF commission
ers OF railroads shall in all cases hold,
L1.