Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1907-05-24
Sporting New $
ARGUE BEFORE THE
HIGHEST TRIBUNAL
CONTINUED from page l.

-
law creating the Office of state
temperance commissioner and cited
numerous authorities which he held
were in support of his position.
Grounds of Attack.
AS to the features of that law that
he thought were repugnant to the con-
stitution, there were, first, the title,
which reads as that of an act proVid-
ing for the better enforcement of the
prohibition law. and providing a re
peal of a former section of the
statutes. This title, he said, was
clearly insufficient, because it did not
express in it the subject matter of the
act 1t did not state that the purpose
of the act was to create new Office,
or to provide an appropriation for it,
and this defect he held brought it
within the. constitutional inhibition
against such titles.
But the law itself, he held, was clear
ly unconstitutional because it attempt
ed to provide statutory officer and
to clothe him with the powers and
duties Of states attorneys in all of
the counties of the state, and en-
powered him to appoint special
sherifs who were sought to be clothed
with some Of the powers and author
ity of the sheriffs in the state. This,
he said, could not be. done. To carry
the law to its limit, under such law
the enforcement commissioner might
be authorized to appoint special en-
forcement justices Of the peace, special
enformecent judges of thet distric
court and special enforcement justices
of the supreme court. These offices
were no more constitutional than the
offices of sheriff and states attorney,
and it was settled rule of law that
the powers reserved to these officers
by the people could not be taken away
or vested in any statutory officers.
Precedents Limited.
There were only two states that
had attempted SO bold an invasion Of
the constitution, and those we're
Maine and North Dakota. He said
the zeal Of many people for the en-
forcement Of the prohibition law was
so intense that they made it creed
| and their creed became greater tt
them than the constitution. In nj
other matter than the enforcement o
this law would SO vital an invasion o
| the authority Of constitutional officer.
be attempted and he did not beliey,
| it would stand for a moment befor,
any court, did it not apply to and al
/ feet this particular law. But evel
\ with that, he felt that the usurpatiol
of authority attempted was illegal ant
4 unconstitutional and that the la7
would not stand a constitutional test
The Other Side.
Judge Corliss opened the argument
with reference to the matter of hi
right to appear before the grand jur,
as assistant counsel to the states al
torney. It was practically agreed be
tween the two attorneys that he coul
not be assistant states attorney il
the meaning of the law, as he was no
La resident of this county But b
held that the law which provided tina
no persons except the states attorne
should go before the grand jury wa
intended to mean that no person bu
the attorney properly interested i
J the prosecution of the case, and tina
| the construction of the law should b
the broad and not the narrow one.
Attorney Townsend as vigorousi
, opposed this construction Of the Law
holding that the statute was plat
when it made this provision and tina
it was intended to exclude attorney
whose very occupation made thel
Iprivate and not public prosecutors.
\ Judge Corliss said he would resery
most Of his argument until Attorne
Townsend had completed as he di
not know exactly what contentious b
!, would have to meet with reference
|, the enforcement commissioner law.
q. The argument was heard by the FL
bench, consisting Of Chief Justie
Morgan and Judges spa1ding an
: Fisk. The arguments will not |
!, finished until today. A considerab
number of attorneys and others hear
the proceedings and remained durir
the entire argument which Taste
!" most Of the afternoon.
GETS Bum ENDORSEMENT.
G~e1s 80 ~ nd