Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1907-02-21

give 'em what they wanted? He
called the attention of the representa-
tives of that county to "a little matter
of $1,000 which the county of Grand
Forks was really owing to the school
fund and he facetiously called the at
/ tention of the chairman to the fact
that the subject at issue was the fin
est of subjects to practice his refer
endum principle upon. The bill was
indefinitely postponed upon the motion
of the gentleman from Burleigh.
Removal OF Officers. .s
i There was pretty little skirmish
4 over the consideration of II. B. 139,
authorizing the governor to remove
and suspend certain state and county
officers who have been guilty of NAL
| feasance or nonfeasance in the per
Torrance of their official duties. The
author of the bill was Mr.. Sorley of
Grand Forks and he confessed that
the measure was\ patterned after a
law which he said had been operative
in Minnesota since 1881. The judi
ciary committee recommended that
the bill be amended by striking out
railroad commissioners who we're in
cluded among the officers who should
be subjected to the operation of the
/ bill. The committee Of the whole
amended the bill in that particular
the railroad commissioners were the
only state officers to come under the
j terms of the bill. isy u W. s
| Mr.. Stevens with some vehemence
stated that the true purport OF the
bill was to bring about the better en-
forcement of the prohibition law. It
gave the governor absolute control. It
was bad bill and while it may be
good in Minnesota it was not
analogous in North Dakota. II Grand
Forks likes the laws of Minnesota so
well why don't they move to attach
themselves to Minnesota, there would
be no tears shed. He believed the
fair to the officials of this state.
Mr.. Sorley confessed that the bill
sought to remove officers who did not
do their duty. The governor, demo-
crat or republican, would be sure to
exercise his commonsense and best
judgment. If there can be law
which will effectually be the means Of
shutting up the blink pigs over this
state the legislature will have done a
good work.
Mr.. Mockler asked Mr.. Sorley to
make clear the matter, If suppose the
officer declined to be removed. He
contended that the law proposed was
not self executing. He was against
the bill, it was reflefction on the
counties Of the state and he warned
the house that the next governor may
not be as good a lawyer as the one
in the executive chair at the present
time. q "A
Mr.. Sorley said the officer could be
removed if there were established rea-
sons for removal-there need be no
worry about that. He then began to
quote Minnesota law and decisions,
when Mr.. Stevens shouted, there you
go again, if you love Minnesota SO
why don't you go and live there?"
I Mr.. Stevens claimed the bill went
4 into all The ramifcations of the
i neighborhood. There were sufficient
4 powers in the laws which were now
on the statute books. The proposed
4 law would enter into every little town.
ship and school district feud. .x
4 Mr.. streeter opposed the bill, ne
contended that public examiner
4 could bring accusation right in the
midst of an election campaign and
do man a great Injustice.
Mr.. Sorley made another attempt at
arguing, but the shouts of question"
became SO loud and convincing that
the chairman put the motion that
when the committee rise it report the
bill for passage and the motion pre-
4 vailed. *
Reciprocal oemurrase.
4 The next matter taken up was H. B
l53, Mr.. Shirley's bill providing fol
reciprocal demurrage, which was the
/, one recommended by the joint commit.
/ tee to which was referred the severa
bills which have been introduced OF
that subject. The committee recon-
mended number of amendments, on,
, was the forfeiture of 10 per cent of til,
, freight charges, instead Of 20 per cen
for each twenty-four hours freight i
: delayed and failure to place cars ate
+ ordering seventy-two hours instead )
! twenty-four, the forfeit to be So for eacl
! seventy-tWo hours. I.
/ Mr.. Stevens said he was well awar
j that the majority of the house was i,
i favor Of the bill under discussion, BIZ,