The Bad River news. [volume] (Philip, Stanley County, S.D.) 19??-1912, 1908-04-09
The Crime Against Komesteaders
BY Gen. 8. j. COuklin.

|
In South Dakota, ! know of no paral-
lei In representative infamy and out
rage, to that which eliminated i'm the
passage of Chapter 244 of the Laws of
1907, entitled "Trespass Of Animals. !"
1t should have been entitled "A bill
to provide for the protection of all
crops on the east side of the Missouri
river, whether fenced or not. from
damage by animals, and to permit
animals on the west side of the river
to destroy all crops not fenced so as
to prevent IT,
The men we sent from Stanley and
Lyman counties to represent us i'm the
legislature, and the governor who per-
mitted that bill to become law in
the shape it was, understood exactly
It's Infamous purpose: but the mem
bers OF the legislature east of the riv-
er did not, or they would never have
permitted 1t to pass. Our represent
atives put stump speech in the bel
y of that bill (Section 10y which de
c'ared; 'Whereas, that portion of the
State of South Dakota lying west Of
the Missouri river is more adapted, in
different portions thereof, to stock
raising and mining industries: and,
whereas, a general law will not apply
to the subject, this act shall not be in
operation, or apply to any portion of
the State Of South Dakota lying west
of the Missouri river until, by a ma
jority Of the legal voters of any coun-
ty situated in said portion of the state,
it shall be adopted and ordered appli-
cable to such county at a special cleo
tion hereinafter provided for, or at a
general election thereafter, when such
question may be submitted to a vote
of the people.
This would have been all very we'll
If the statement in said Section 10, to-
wit: "That general law will not ap-
ply to this subject" had been true:
but 1t was an internal lie, as false as
the men who concocted and slowed
| away In Section 10 the slumbering
devil it contained, as l will illustrate.
Suppose In place of said Sections 10
and IL, the law had been applicable to
every county In the state and then
provided that five per cent Of the vo-
ters of any county in the state might
invoke referendum of the law and
determine. by a majority vote, the
question of suspending the law in such
county; the law would have then been
applicable to any county in the state,
no matter whether east or west of the
river; such law would have been fair
and satisfactory and in harmony with,
instead Of conflict with, Section p of
our state constitution which declares,
"Where general law can he made
applicable, no special law shall be en-
acted" (See last clause of Section q
Of the state constitution.)
Ii l have shown that a general law
could have been so drawn as to have
been alike applicable to the whole
state, it follows that Sections 10 and
II OF said Chapter pa, are unconstitu-
tional and void. The state constitu-
tion, Article 3, Section l, in relation
to invoking the initiative or referen-
dunn, declares that "Not more than
five per cent Of the qualified electors
OF the state shall be required to in
woke either the initiative or the re-
ferendum;" and in the fourth line
following, 1t declares further, "This
Section (all OF said Section u shall ap-
ply to municipalities. Counties and
towns, as we'll as villages and cities,
are municipalities as we'll: therefore,
as Chapter 244 provides that it shall
require majority of all the legal vo-
ters OF a county to invoke the refer
endum provided for by Sections 10 and
II, 1t follows that Sections 10 and II
are unconstitutional and void.
What shall b said of the represent
atives Of Stanley and Lyman counties