The Fargo forum and daily republican. [volume] (Fargo, N.D.) 1894-1957, 1910-12-15
BURKE COUNTY
Fight this Week
RoWBELLs AND Ignite ENGAGE
IN LEGAL BATTLE THAT WILL
BE MOST UNUSUAL.

Minot, N. D., Dec. 15.-No county
seat fight waged in North Dakota dur
ing the past few years, and there have
| been several bitter ones, have EN-
bodied such interesting questions of
| law nor has the probable outcome APP
! peared so uncertain as in Burke
| county, the first round of which will
take place in Minot Friday when Judge
| c. F. Templeton of Grand Forks hears
arguments on the the case A writ OF
mandamus applied for by the people
of Ignite, one of the contenders in
the county seat fight, against the
county board of canvassers of Burke
county to compel them TO count the
votes cast in twelve precincts previ-
ously thrown out is the form in which
| the matter will first come to the at
tention of the courts OF the state.
| Duties Of the county board of can
vassers is one of the features involved
| in the case, and if the contention of
! the Ignite people holds true, then the
county board of canvassers is nothing
| more or less than a counting machine
! and has no power to go back and
throw out returns from precincts when
| certain alleged irregularities may be
| brought forth. That is what the can
wasting board of Burke county did ano
the board uphoIds it's right in throw
! ing out such returns under chapter
Of the laws of the state making it a
penal offense for members Of board
Of Canvassers to canvass votes that
are not cast in regularly established
precinct and ait regularly established
| polling place.
All One Way.
In every township in which the cam
vassng board refused to count the
votes the question Of county seat loca-
ton was voted on favorably to Ignite,
and had they been allowed to stand
Ignite would have had $50 votes to
S24 for Bowbells. With the several
precincts thrown out, however, the re-
suit is entirely different, Bowbells
having a majority.
The present attempt at securing a
canvassing of the votes in these sew
eral precincts is admittedly only a
preliminary bout to the bigger fight
that is to come, and in anticipation of
this Ignite has filed another action
in which it contests the selection of
county. The second action was filed
at this time so as to be within the
time limit allowed for starting cases
of that nature.
Lignite's hope at this time is to Sc
cure recount Of the votes and in
that manner gain the removal of the
| county seat to their city. With the
county officers once located there, Lig-
mite would be on the defensive while
| Bowbells would be In a position where
1t would have to show its hand.
Many Complications Probable.
There are a number of interesting
Implications that give rise to specu-
ton at this time. Should the several
recncts in which the canrassers re-
fuse to allow the vote be declared H.
agal, the next step by Ignite would
/ be to attempt to throw out the entire
election on the ground that there were
no legally established voting places or
voting precincts in the entire county.
Prevailing in this, there would be an
other situation entirely different from
anything that has arisen so far.
With that election thrown out Bow
bells would raise the claim that ii was
the permanent county seat. Under the
general laws of the state the location
of a county seat permanently must be
made at the next succeeding general
election, and the fact that the next
succeeding general election time would
have passed by and no selection made
Bowbells would contend THAI 1t held
the county seat honors permanently
on the strength OF the original action
by the county commissioners.
It would then be for Ignite people
% contest this question, and should
9owbells win, two years hence Ignite
you'd enter the fight to secure the
emoval Of the county seat to their
lace. A two-thirds vote would be
necessary and Bowbells would as
consequence, have all the advantage.