Bismarck weekly tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1884-1943, 1899-03-03

mouse Dill l54, prOnlDlClng kllllng OF
deer, was indefinitely postponed.
House Bill 100, game law amendment,
was indefinitely postponed.
House Bill 15s, relating to hunting
permits, was indefinitely postponed.
Senate Bill 43, election law, was re-
commended to pass.
Senate Bill 1O4, primary election law,
was indefinitely postponed. ss7f
Senate Bill AZ, relating to note of issue
and order of trial, was indefinitely post
poned.
SUPREME COURT TERMS.
Senate Bill IA, fixing terms of su-
preme court, was recommended to be in
definitely postponed by the majority.
The minority recommended the passage
of the bill.
Mr.. Hare spoke against the bill. The
questions coming before the supreme
court should be heard in the chambers
provided in the state capitol, where is
the state library. The legislature was
not here to legislate for attorneys. The
majority of the committee has recon-
mended what was right when they took
their first action recommending the in
definite postponement of the bill. The
great commercial centers Of the state,
Fargo and Grand Forks, could only be
built up by building up the vast area of
the western state. 1t was to the interest
of those towns to develop the west-as-
sist it, and thereby conserve their own
greatness.
Mr.. McHarg said he was not in favor
of taking the court away from Bismarck.
There had been roll call in committee
on the question, and the bill had been
recommended to be indefinitely post
poned. The court should be where is the
home Of the court and the library. No
other state in the union but had the
supreme court at the capital.
Mr.. Hare moved that the majority re-
port be adopted.
Mr.. Bacon said the people wanted a
change because three-fourths of the
cases came from the country tributary
to Fargo and Grand Forks. There was
no other state in the union where the
capital was on the edge of civilization.
The clients were the ones who suffered
the expenses of farther travel. 1t was
not question of unfairness to the slope.
The valley had voted appropriations to
the capitol and penitentiary and for
other slope appropriations.
Mr.. Stevens said the original bill pro-
vided for three terms of court. The con-
stitution SO provided. At the request of
the supreme court, the law was amended
and two terms of the court were pro-
vided for at Bismarck, because of the
law library at the capital and the neces-
sity Of doing the vital work there. This
had become unsatisfactory to the attor-
neys tributary to Fargo and Grand
Forks. The compromise bill had been
introduced SO that the judges might not
be cut off from the advantages of the
capitol at two terms. It was not neces-
sary for a lawyer to do 50 much travelling
If he put more in his brief-and for
that he needed the advantages of the
state library. He did not want the court
removed, not because it was of any par
ticular advantage to locality, but because
it was best for the convenience of the
judges, and what was best for them was
best for the state. In Illinois the court,
after being migratory, was located at the
capitol. The same change had been made
in North Dakota. He did not want any
one to think the legislature was building
up an institution on the slope, or confer
ring any pecuniary benefit. The question
was merely one of convenience for the
judges, not one of whom would favor a
migratory court, if he consulted his
own wishes alone. The law now
provided for special terms of court at
other cities, if the judges deemed wise.
If the gentleman (Bacon) stated that
the Valley paid all taxes for the capitol
end penitentiary, he desired to call at
tention to the fact that nine -tenths of
the officers who had occupied the capitol
building were from the Red River valley,
and the taxes to support the peniten.
tiary went to support convicts, nine
tentns of whom come from the same
place daughter and applause.) e
The motion to adopt the minority re-
port that the bill do pass was carried.
The bill was read for the third time and
passed.
CHANGE OF JUDGE IN CIVIL ACTIONS.
Senate Bill No. 80, for the calling in.
of another Judge in civil actions, was
recommended to pass. .
Mr.. Stevens opposed the bill. The
judges were chosen by the people and
for the purposes Of hearing causes in
their districts. This bill provides that
where any person is dissatisfied with any
judge, he may secure another Judge on a
simple affidavit. II the bill provided
that the affidavit must set forth reasons
for the change, and state the foundation
for them, it would not be SO Objectionable.
In many instances sucha demand for
change would cause continuance of
cases. The bill would result in injustice
and he hoped it would not prevail.
Mr.. Thomas was surprised that the
bill was not already the law. When a
client and attorney made an affidavit Of
prejudice against the Judge, he was sur