Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1911-02-05
Dissenting OPINION
Continued from page g.

as ldu supposed was the case, but
that 1t is all inherent right under our
state constitutions, practically an in
a a. Il; right. If this is correct, it
follows that the power of the leeisla-
tare to regulate the exercise of the
lIei1t to vote must be considerable re-
stricted and limited as compared with
IT'S power where the right is held 70 he
elus'on Of the Wisconsin court far
more difficult to reach than had the
r.gnt to vote been held privileoe
m 1T is held in that CASE tbat
me IN, validity of the law depends unon nom
=; nc answers to two questions: First
II. Is the purpose legitimate; second a..
tne means employed to effect the mr., a."
pose legitimate? And that i The n n,,r
pose is legitimate and the means p ~,
ployed to effect the purpose rcaso,al,i,,
auaptea to that end, the law is ent;t1ad
10 JUDICIAL approval, and that rourt t ar
S"ers both questions in the aft;rma+; a.
s;v eIou fra,,. De pleased to quote sx,cn-
o c,Iiy from rom tf1ae opinion, but the reas-
v was limits OF this dissent, after WHAT
WAS WAS sa'd IN the Anderson case rem
S Ssa IL 'nadvisable and unnecessa ,"
Gee state Of Wisconsin ex rel UcC s,.s;
q a. a. vs.. Phelps ct al, N, W ''e'
lne supreme court of M;nnoso+o =.
otate vs. Jensen, sc MINI. 10 'o naasa IL,
"pH' a statute where the nr;nc;n1a '; ;s'
vowed vowed was identical with this b"t t H..
percentage was ten per cent of t tha e.le
nc vote OF the state, and III. ".o en-
SION was held constitut;on,, '"e Prov
I'VE o ara .t ITS opinion the court Saws $:
latuTe are &c. OF the opinion that the iep;s.
, ~;th may may classify political " nar s;s
cond;+; :eaerence to difference in nart,
nrasns:p and numerical strenotb pa 10y
canJ;da oe now each one shall select "; ~
ttsaa'o:,'aates: but it cannot Do eee its
no aIny and confer upon one c ~ aiol-
tsaes privileges and partisan as sd,, I'M
. ..S and deny them to anothos auv ",
s sar, hamper it with unfair and ',nne eaass
1s": burdens and restrictions in INC
s .eenon OF its candidates. Wh nc Sc,
81 e .s 10 some of us that the nerca',.o II
th he c,asslhcaton in this act is "1 1n,o o.
tho ,necessary, yet it is a. ouest;o,' f e.
fed ; Is h'1' and we are not ;us ST..
was a ~ holding that the classi6cat;o t'
-, IN ,Ledgerwood ct al vs. p;tts
49, Tenn. so, case decided =, q ,o al;
, ,, supreme court of that star. , aoo'
t UPON provision that excluded passed fsS
MY DEMENT'S of the primary clrrt;ar ~" ,ol
p p"r parties casting less than law tn'
pr cent of the entire vote Of ,,,n Ter
al the preceding Novemborr ''le stat'
tion u ana held that such cla s
c rum was not unreasonable, arL;t rar''
e'P e or partial. "'o''''ry'
r. ' &c, also Ladd vs.. Holmes IN 0xo
-" ,, w AM St. Rep. 457. ~ gre
,,,.l "esc are only a few OF rho ,,..
'u.'::orltles which might be c;tod '' s'
la,''''g the decision in tho a',i s''s
ease; and that conflict with tho .' nn;,
~ ", inc majority in the case at , op''' n
r ne principle which l contend D for h i'a
;,,a been passed upon bv th; ;0' oc Id
III an opinion which met MI, t''' =, cour
in the o H., each- member who now io in
re-, 'II Io majority opinion. In State o ~,
'' w, ,;essendorf vs.. Blaisdell s,,nra g.
tha t n'' N every respect analappus (,
l l"v 'a'e at bar was before ,s and Il,
"a" SUSTAINED. That case is c;ted ' II,
t d., wisconsin court in Ste eneu D!
r, nv,ps. supra. as the latest nrono,uos
ne"t upon the question ! III, .,:
s sour' dcclslon in the Heggendorf '" cas
. SOUND, although in effect overp,,Io,' 1a IS
INC majority opinion herein '''eu y
Nn'ef Justice Marshall said ,,,..
let it i BE- w;, hst the, the end be legitimate
S,,e''tion, and all means wniicI, are 'o al
t thoipa which are plainly adanted r
a"e e''o' winch are not prohibited h,
consistent with the letter and shirt ~ -
I'he constitution are constitut;o,t;l ,,
Inns principle must apply with fl
l2Feater force to the powers NJ y ,eo;s
'ature OF state. than those of con
lgress. '~ " con
,,d Another reason for affirming tn
Judgment here appealed from is pre
sehted Ill respondents brief Undc
lne circumstances of this case, cx
press no opinion regarding this point
OUT must call attention to the princiDl
ana some authorities sustaining il
The principle is laid down, that wher
the statute has been held to be con
st'tutional by the appellate court, tina
the community has right to expcc
with confidence that in subsequent case
the court will adhere to its former de
c's'on made after full argument an,
upon due consideration, and by SOM
courts this principle is emphasized
where an attack is renewed after
Gnange III the personnel of the court
FISHER VS.. Horizon Iron company, I,
Wisconsin. 355; Gibbons VS.. Ogden, L
Johns. 4Se; Amoskeag Manufacture,
company VS.. Goodall, 81 New Hamp
shire, &c; Stout vs. Grand county, 10;
Indiana, 34S. Mr. Justice White, nov
Chief justice of the supreme court O
the United States, discussed this sub
yect, in Pollock vs.. Farmers Loan 8
Trust Co., l57 U. S., 6O9, and I quot,
briefly from his opinion:
"A distinguished writer aptly point!
out, the wrong which must result te
society from a shifting judicial inter
probation. He says:
If results and maxims of law were
to ebb and flow with the taste of tn.
Judge, or to assume that shape which
IN his fancy best becomes the times
if the decisions of one case were moi
to be ruled by. or depend at all upor
further determinations in other case.
OF like ncfure 7 ShO,,Id he u1,d <r