Bismarck weekly tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1884-1943, 1899-05-26
Supreme Court Today Declares Uncon-
stitutional the Stark County
Boundary Law.
Title Of the Bill Fatally Defective,
Under the constitutional Re-
quirements.
Decision Affects the Boundaries of the
Counties Of Billings, Stark and
Mercer.
TIE STARK COUNTY CAsE.

For the second time the county of
Stark has been knocked out. The
first time it was by Governor Short
ridge, who vetoed the bill a~nnexing
the unorganized territory after it had
passed the legislature. Now, after
the law has been in effect four years,
the supreme court knocks out the law
by a decision rendered today, which
declares the law unconstitutional.
The action to test the constitution
atty of the law has been in the courts
for several years, having been begun
soon after the law passed by w. l..
Richards, representing some Of the cat
tie interests of the formerly morgan
lied territory. The case came IN in
the district court, where o decision was
rendered over a year ago. The case
was appealed to the supreme court,
and has been on the calendar for sew
eral terms, being argued at the recent
term by Attorney L. A. Simpson for
the county, and through a brief pre-
sented by Burke Corbet of Grand
Forks, representing Richards. The
decision of the court as handed down
knocks out the law because of it's title.
and the syllabus Of the opinion says:
Chapter 25, laws of 1895, is entitled
can act to increase the of
the state by changing and increasing
the boundaries of the counties of Stark,
Billings and Mercer" The body of
the act simply increases the boundar-
les of such counties. Held. that the
Grf iS 11nannSfif,1finro 1n<o,.o %1,o
subject of the act is not expressed
in the title as required by section 81
of the constitution of the state.'
In the opinion in the case. which is
written by Judge Bartholomew. after
a statement of the general provisions
of law with reference to the titles of
bills and the expression properly of
the subject matter therein. the court
says:
ut (tle act is entitled ".An act to
increase the revenues of the state by
changing and increasing the boundar-
les of the counties Of Billings, Stark
and Mercer" 1t requires no studied
analysis of this title to discover. first,
that the declared subject of the act
in an increase in the of the
state. and second, that the remainder
of the title but specifies the means and
Observation-Disclosures by which that in
crease is to be secured. But the allie
CATION of the means and instrumental
tiles in no affects the an
nounced subject. If the title be good
it does MOI require the additional allie
CATIONS. If the title be bad the adj
ditional allegations cannot cure it.
For the purposes of the question under
discussion the title is simply IAN act
to increase the revenues Of the state"
Turning to the body of the act we
find that it contains five sections. The
first fixes the boundaries of Billings
county. the second fixes the boundar-
les of Stark county and the third fixes
the boundaries of Mercer county. The
fourth section provides that the pro-
visions of the three preceding sections
shall not go into effect until the matter
has been submitted to a vote of the
qualified electors of the respective
counties. The fifth repeats all con-
f1icting laws. From the first to last
there is no reference, in terms. to the
revenues Of the state in the body of
the act. But counsel for respondent
insists that this court must take judi
cial notice Of the fact that the neces-
sary result Of the act was to increase
the revenues Of the state. We do not
so understand it. True we may take
notice that all the vast eXpanse added
to the counties named by the act con-
sists Of ~unorganized counties. But
while we have no doubt of it's truth.
We cannot take judicial notice of the