The Cooperstown courier. (Cooperstown, Griggs Co., N.D.) 1902-1913, 1905-12-14
law OF 1905
IS HELD VOID
THE OPINION OF THE SUPREME
COURT HAS ATTRACTED
MUCH ATTENTION.
Decision Was Basel Mainly on the
Point that Legislature Has No
Power to Dictate Purely Legisla-
tive Matters to q Commission.

The supreme court Of North Dakota
probably never has, in recent years at
least, handed down q decision that has
attracted more attention that that
which holds the state capitol commits
sion law invalid. The opinion was
written by Chief Justice Morgan, and
all concurred.
The relator seeks a permanent in
junction restraining the defendants
from further proceedings towards the
remodeling and reconstruction of the
capitol building Of the state Of North
Dakota, and from all other proceed
ings by said board provided for by
Chapter 166, Laws of 1905. Said chap
ter provides for the appointment by
the governor Of board of capitol
commissioners, consisting of three per-
sons. 1t provides that such board
shall have power to make contract
for the remodeling and reconstruction
of the capitol of the state of North
Dakota, and for the erection Of q gov
ernor's residence on lots owned by the
state in Bismarck. The details as to
how funds shall be procured by issuing
and selling certificates of Indebtedness
to be drawn solely against the funds
derived from the sale Of public lands
der Sections IL and IL Of the Enabling
Act, are provided for by the act. The
members of the board were duly APP
pointed by the governor and confirm
ed by the senate. The members there
Of duly qualified under their appoint
ment by taking the oath and giving
the bonds, required by the act, and
duly organized as board by the cleo
ton Of president and the appoint
ment of a secretary. Afterwards the
board advertised for plans and speci-
fcations for remodeling and recon-
structing the capitol building, and for
bids for doing the work and furnish-
ing the materials under the plans and
specifications furnished. While such
advertisement was proceeding, a pre-
liminary injunction was issued by this
court, upon a complaint verified by the
relator An order to show cause was
incorporated in said preliminary in
junction why the same should not be
continued in force permanently. The
defendants appeared, and issues hav-
ing been Joined on the allegations Of
the complaint the same were argued
before the court on Oct. 3, the
hearing Of the order to show cause
having been set on that day.
The plaintiff alleges in the complaint
that Chapter 166, Laws of 1905, under
which the defendants are proceeding,
is unconstitutional and void, and that
the defendant board is proceeding in
direct violation of said chapter, which
specifies what their duties shall be and
how they shall proceed. In general,
the complaint alleges that the board is
proceeding to carry out the provisions
of said act before it Is practicable, and
is therefore contrary to the terms Of
the act; and that the board has violat-
ed Section 6, of said act, which pre-
scribes their duties as to selecting
plans and specifications and receiving
bids. The claim is made in support
of this objection that competitive bids
are not asked for either as to plans or
as to doing the work.
1t is also claimed that the board is
contracting debt against the state
which is in excess Of the limitation on
debts fixed by the constitution.
1t is also contended and alleged In
the complaint that the board is pro-
ceeding to dispose of the lands dona-
ted by congress by the Enabling Act in
a manner contrary to the provisions
thereof, and that the board is diverting
the IunQ derived from tHe sale OF SAID
lands by providing for the payment Of
interest on certificates Of indebted
ness out Of said funds.
1t is also alleged that the said act
is unconstitutional because (I 1t con-
tains more than one subject, viz: the
reconstruction of capitol building
and the erection Of a governors resi-
dence; ca that it delegates to the
board the power of determining what
sum shall be expended in a governors
residence. and what sum shall be ex-
pended in reconstructing the capitol
building; (3) that the law contravenes
the provisions Of the Enabling Act by
making provisions for the erection Of
governors residence.