The Fargo forum and daily republican. [volume] (Fargo, N.D.) 1894-1957, 1910-04-26
Temperance Commissioner Decision

ever, in the judgment of such COM
missioner, he deems II necessary, he
shall in each county, city, village or
town OF this state, with the aid of such
deputy commissioner and one or more
Of such special sheriffs, enforce said
prohibition law, thereby, to such ex-
tent, necessarily superseding and sup
planting the regular officers elected by
the people pursuant to the constitution
for the purpose of performing such
duties.
The court held that this could not
be done-that such law could not be
legally enacted--without first amending
the constitution which provides for the
election by the people of officers to per-
form such duties; that the trainers of
the constitution in their wisdom DEEM
ed 1t wiser to entrust to the people
the selection Of such officers as states
attorneys and sheriffs than to entrust
their selection to an appointive power;
that If the legislature without an
amendment of the constitution could
thus provide for appointive officers to
supplant states attorneys and sheriffs
in the enforcement Of one criminal law
1t could do so In the enforcement of all
criminal laws, thus, in effect, multiplying
the constitutional requirement that Of
ficers vested with such important func-
tions as filing criminal informations
and making searches seizures and ar
rests, must be effected by and direct
ly responsible to the people. In other
words, the majority of the court by
it's decision was unwilling to uphold
rests, must be elected by and direct
constitutional right of selecting such
officers and vesting UGH power in
state officials, without first amend
ing the constitution so as to confer
such right on them. It would seem
plain from a mere statement of the
proposition that the court was right
and that a contrary decision might
quences. IL the legislature could
legally enact such a law, 1t could.
of course, go further. 1t could. in
addition to providing for an appointive
governor, an appointive attorney
general, and an appointive court for
the enforcement, not only of the
prohibition law, but a separate set
of such officers could likewise be APP
pointed for the enforcement of each
criminal statute in the code. What
might be done under such rule of
construction is the test. A mere
statement of the proposition ought to
suffice to demonstrate It's utter fallacy,
even to the mind of the ordinary lay
man. 1t is no answer to say that be-
cause the state as such is primarily In
terested in the enforcement of criminal
laws that 1t may take their enforce
ment out of the hand OF those to
whom 1t has been entrusted by the
people by constitutional right This Is
| placing the police power Of the state
above the constitution, the paramount
law OF the land, which cannot be done
The exlgencies of the situation do not
demand. nor do they Justify such a re-
suit 1t IL OF far greater Importance
to our people that the constitution be
maintained unimpaired than that any
statute be upheld. however important
Tits provisions may appear. The at
| tempted legislation is not only uncon-
Estitutional, but 1t rests upon an un-
sound and unwarranted assumption