Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1905-11-22
THE CAPITOL COMMISSION.

Succinct Statement of Supreme Court
Decision As Set Forth in Minne-
apolis ,Journai.
The following from the Minneapolis
Journal is succinct statement of
the capitol commission matter:
Great interest attaches to the de-.
cision of the supreme court in declar-
ing invalid the law creating a state
capitol commission for North Dakota,
authorizing the erection of the new
capitol and executive mansion, and
the issue of 100000 of certificates
based on the capitol-land endowment
for that purpose. This puts an end
to the controversy regarding the state
capitol for. two years at least. The
decision grants permanent injunc-
ton against the commission from
proceeding further under the law.
It was written by Chief Justice
Morgan, and is concurred in by all
the justices. The fatal defect in the
bill is not the using of the land grant
for the purpose stated in the bill,
which the court holds to be lawful
and amply within the power of the
legislature. The decision is based on
the fact that the legislature in pass
ing the bill gave to the commission
power to build the capitol building
and executive mansion without speci-
flying how much money should be
spent on the two buildings respective:
ly. This, the court holds, is purely
legislative power and cannot be dele
gated to a commission. If the bill
had stated how much the commission
was to have spent on the capitol
building and how much upon the exc
cutive mansion, it would have been
valid under the decision just filed by
the court. @,5a5 !,
The capitol commission bill was
passed at the last session of the legis-
lature and authorized the appoint
ment of commission to rebuild and
reconstruct the present state capitol
and construct an executive mansion.
The land grant granted by congress
for the purpose of erecting admin
istration buildings was authorized to
be used, and in the meantime the
commission was authorized to issue
100000 of certificates to furnish
funds until the lands could be sold.
Under this bill, a commission was ap-
pointed by the governor, consisting of
William Bulge, Andrew Sandager
and D. j. Laxdal. d..
This commission advertised for bids
for the furnishing of plans and ac-
companying bids for doing the work
proposed by the plans. This pro-
posed method of obtaining plan that
was suitable and discovering at the
same time how much the plan could
and would be executed for did not
please contractors at Fargo and
Grand Forks, who brought an action
to restrain the commission from pro-
ceeding under the proposed bids, and
afterwards asked for a permanent
injunction against the commission,
claiming the law was void because
the congress of the United States did
not intend such disposal of the
lands under the enabling act. The
supreme court does not hold with
this contention Of the objectors, but
decides the matter on the grounds
first stated. " ~.
The passing of the capitol bill was
a matter Of personal pride to Alex
ander Mckenzie, who desired to see
the state have a capitol building
suited to its needs. he having been
concerned with the original location
of the building at Bismarck twenty
two years ago and having desired the
erection Of a permanent and fitting
building for the capitol of the state,