Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1910-04-23
SUMPTION.

.
nounces an erroneous rule of consti-
tional law,-that we speak more par
ticularly at this time. Although de-
cided in October, 1907, the correct
ness of such decision has not been
publicly challenged until recently
and then only by layman who, as
before stated, assumes it's incorrect
ness and boldly attacks the judicial
character, honesty and integrity of
a member of our highest court, who,
as a mere instrument of the law,
gave expression to the views of the
majority Of that court.
The principles involved in the case
are of far-reaching Importance, not
only to the people Of this state, but
to every state in the union where
the people cherish the time-honored
right and privilege of home rule or
local self-government. 1t involves
the principle of rule by the people
as contra distinguished from rule
by central authority. The princi-
pies involved are, it would seem,
plain and ought to be understood
even by laymen IMMERSED in the in
tricacies Of legal lore. 1t is sig
nificant fact that North Dakota is
the only state in this Union that
ever enacted such a statute as the
one calling forth this decision.
What, in brief, were the provisions
of the Temperance Commissioners
Act? 1t undertook to vest in the gov
ernor the power to appoint an officer
styled Enforcement Commissioner"
who should be an attorney at law and
who should be paid salary of
$4,000 per year and his actual ex-
penses. Such appointeey in turn was
vested with power to appoint So
called deputy enforcement commits
sioner, and such commissioner and
deputy were given "aiI Of the COM
mon-Iaw and statutory powers of
states attorneys in their respective
counties in the enforcement Of the
law against the manufacture and
sale Of intoxicating liquors. 1t fur
Their provides that 1.-The enforcement
commissioner shall appoint such
number Of special enforcement sher-
1913 as in his judgment may be. ne
cessary, who shall have throughout
the state all the common-|aw and
powers Of sheriffs in their
respective counties in the enforce
nent Of such law" Also, ut shall
be the duty Of said deputy commits
sioner and special sheriffs to- exer-
else all the powers here conferred
when, where and as directed by said
commissioner" 1t also
for the taxation of costs in
:avor of such commissioner, deputy
and enforcement sher-
ifs, the same as are now allowed
md taxed to the regular states at
orneys and sheriffs. Such attempt
ID legislation also provides, in ef-
ect, that whenever, in the judgment !
Of such commissioner. he deems it
necessary, he shall in each /ounty
.ity, village or town of this state,
With the aid of such deputy commits ;
ioner and one or more Of such spe-
'ial sheriffs, enforce said prohibi-
ion law, thereby, to such extent,
superseding and sup
PLANTING the regular officers elected
~ the people pursuant to the consti-
ution for the purpose of perform !
ng such duties.
The court held that this could not
re done-that such law could not !
Re legally enacted-without first
intending the constitution which
provides for the election by the peo-
lie of officers to perform such du-
les: that the trainers of the con-
in their wisdom deemed it
wiser to entrust. to the people
he selection of such officers as
tate attorneys and sheriffs than
O entrust their selection to an
ppointive power: that if the
legislature without an amend
nent of the constitution could thus
rovide for appointive officers to
upplant states attorneys and sher-
ifs in the enforcement of one GRIM
nal law, it could do so in the en-
orcement Of all criminal laws, thus,
n effect, multiplying the constitu-
ional requirement that officers
ested with such important func-
ions as filing criminal informations
md making searches, seizures and ar
ests, must be effected by and direct
Y responsible to the people, In other
words, the majority of the court by
IS decision was unwilling to uphold