The Washburn leader. [volume] (Washburn, McLean County, N.D.) 1890-1986, 1894-10-27

when a state needs a strong ana con-
| scrvative supreme court. it is during the
| formation period. while its policies are
being determined. and while fundamental
principles and doctrines arc heing an.
%nonnceh. that must be followed for all
time. 1t has often been said. and may
! with perfect truth he said. that in this
respect North Dakota has been rXccp-
~iionally fortunate. He supreme court
stands for the peoples rights. evcrytime.
The bar of the state understands this.
! but. as the Republican party asks the re-
election Of Judge Bartholomew. We have.
with some labor 10 ourselves. looked into
some "f the eases. and we desire here to
| reproduce the points. SO that every voter
may SEE. what we have said is true;
One of the early cases decided by the
| cOnrt was entitled Harrington vs.. The
New England Investment Company;
The parties represented The Great North
! ern railroad on one side and Ramsey
county on the other 1t was IN effort
on the part of the railroad company TO
avoid p%ayinrn, of its taxes by reason of
irregularities in the tax. The opinion
was written by Judge Bartholomew. and
laid down the doctrine. on authority. that
where a tax is Just and uniform no party
need expect the courts to aid him III beat
ing the state out of its revenue because
certain taxing officials had acted irrrgu.
larly.
Another important tax law case was
Tyler vs.. Cass County. 1t was an action
ties allowed in case of redemption. pad
out for tax sale certificates. when it
afterwards transpired that the lands were
not subject to sale. The facts were that
prior to 1885 the lands belonging to the
Northern Pacific aRilroad company had
been sold for delinquent taxes, both the
counties and the purchasers s"pposlng
such lands to be liable for the taxes. In
1885 the supreme court Of the United
States held these lands not taxable by
reason of a technical defect in title. That
DECISION. Of course rendered ~ the pre-
vious tax sales OF such lands Invalid,
hence the action to recover back the
money. The supreme court in IN c1haus-
tive opinion prepared by Judge Bartholo-
court. held that, in tho absence of an ex-
press statutory provision 10 that effect
counties were not liable to refund money
paid out under such circumstances The
case was carried to the supreme court Of
the United States, and the unanimous
opinion Of that court sustained the opin-
ion of o u supreme court in every particu-
Lar. This decision saved the taxpayers
In the counties embracing lands in the
Northern Pacific grant hundreds of thons.
ands of dollars that they would otherwise
have been compelled to refund to tax
title spectators all over the country.
Another inporta,t case is what is
known as the Elevator case. In that
case the supreme court. by a unanimous
opinion. prepared by Judge Wallin. held
that tho state had I'll. right to fix tho
rcaSOnih bic charges. to D." made !,y elcvat-
or owners for storing or handling grain.
This case. too. was carried to the federal
supreme court. nnd again our court was
affirmed. and Il right irrt vorably secured
(which -, nc v,,l,,t,ll l,b,n(st IN AM
farmers.
Of perhaps even greater Importance is
the ease of Whited VS.. The Vermont
Loan and Trust Company. In 1S!W our
legislature sought TO pass Il law against
usury, so clear, specific and strict. that
and subtrrfugps by which many loancrs
We're constantly worrying from %,lfortu-
nate and improvident borrowers interest
far in excess of that allowed by law. a
cas-" soon arose under this law in Grand
Forks county. and Il violent attack was
made ,lpon the law as unconstitutional
and void. On appeal to the supreme
ha,isiive opinion. concnrrcd in by the en-
tire court. and the correctness of which
no ono now prcsunies to question, sns-
tanned the law in all respects. thus saw:
ing to the people Of this new state. and
With wllor, borrowing money is often.
I!JIu'S IL ItH'sSltS. 'HH pi'u'' " VI IL
is p.ri.ais the host law against usury to
be t.,rni in any state in til" Union.
Nc may mention also the very recent
ca." under the Drainage law. Our last
Legislature passed such a law. and it was
mucE needed. too, in certain localities.
The act required the expenditure Of large
'su.:s of money. but the rights of private
parties and taxpayers wnre not protected
under the law as the constitution re-
quirrs. Hence when the appeal was
made to the supreme court i did rot
and the people and declare the act uncon-
stitnti"nal. The opinion in this case was
also prepared by Judge Bartholomew.
Many more cases might lc mentioned,
hut these are ample to show the character
I'D quality, of the Republican nnmin"e.
tom. have. si%nslc-har,'"l AMI alone.
worked their way from The bottom Of ne
. shpre,ne cnnrt are no, apt TO get very far
away from the people and their rights.
The esteem in which our supreme court
is held hy the bars Of the s,a,e. is. per-
haps, the greatest compliment that It