The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1904-02-27
- q
STATUS Or STATE
CAPITOL BONDS
ISSUE HELD 1IIIEGAL BY ATToR-
~, NEYs. AT, GRAND FORKS.
Their Purchase by the Board of Uni
'v5ersity and School Lands Opposed
by Two Members, Prick and Stock
well-Late, Decision Of the SUI
preme Court Held to Govern in
This Case. ~ epy ...st.s:
speciel to, r,l'e Journal.

Speciel to The Journal. n. .'.,',ihsss:, I.
Grand Forks, N. p, Feb. 27-Inquiries
were made yesterday of local attorneys
concerning the status of $4,000 of state,
capitol bonds, which were bought at: the
last session of the board Of university
and school lands at Bismarck, held some
two or three weeks ago. 1t is stated that
at that meeting, when the question Of &C
cepting these bonds came up, the pur-
chase was opposed by Attorney General
Frick and State Superintendent Stockwell,
the other members of the board, Governor
White, Auditor Holmes and Treasurer
Mcmillan voting for the resolution, thus
carrying it. The members opposing the
purchase insisted, according to the story
told, on their votes being recorded in the
minutes of the meeting.
When the supreme court decided that
I the institution bonds offered to the board
Of university and school lands, 4and &C.
cepted by that body, were not a proper
investment for the funds in the custody OF
that board, IT. also laid down some prin-
cipIes which are believed to govern in the
case Of these capitol bonds: tho the lat
ter were not directly involved. in that
suit. The constitution provides that 1.-The
| funds belonging to the public institu-
lions and to the common schools, Of the
state shall be invested in certain specified
ways. j., The investments permitted are
United States bonds, bondseof the stateso
North Dakota, bonds of North Dakota
school districts and first mortgages OF
North Dakota farm lands The suprem,
court decided that the institution bond
were not in anE-z,of these classes. Thu
only class that they could have come un
der was thatTof state bonds, and the coY y!
excluded them. from this list on tn
ground. that the state had no right t.
issue bonds, as !; the bonding limit pre-
scribed by the constitution had alread
been reached. IT, =
Position of Attorney and Superintendent
The attorney general and state super
intendent reasoned that SO far as being
proper investment for the permanent
funds was concerned the capitol bonds ar
in exactly the same condition as, tn
. other bonds, which the supreme court sal
) could not be bought. :: According to thei
), view these latter bonds. cannot, be con
strued as state bonds, for the same reaso
3 as that specified when the other bond
were under consideration Not being stat
!. bonds they are 'inadnnissib1e as. securitie
for these funds unless they come undo
one of the other definitions. No one wi
' contend that they are United States {
school district bonds, or farm mortgage
r and THIS, in the opinion OF Nessrs; Eric
and Stockwell, settles the question. ~
The purpose for which the capitol bono
are issued is to complete the new wing
the capitol -buildfng's the contra ct For whic
has already been let to Butler Bros. Of S
! Raul What would be the result If actic
j We're, taken to prevent the payment of tt
money for the bonds remains to be dete!
tInined: '">- S%>a,' <f'>''>s'S
Judge Corliss who represented the il
l ! stitutions in the recent bond cases, is
8 the opinion uthat~-the bond issue.sfor cal
r ital improvement is as illegal as the issl
n of institution bonds which the court he
= were not state bonds and not legal. a.