The pioneer express. [volume] (Pembina, Dakota [N.D.]) 1883-1928, 1911-08-25
from their own language when possible,
and that they are not changed but re.
vised laws.

from tnelr own language when possible,
and that they are not changed but re.
vised laws.
ERRORS OF COURT AS TO ORIGIN AND CON-
sTRUcTIoN OF THE N. OAK. STATUTES.
Referring to this part Of the questions
at issue, the attorneys for Pembina
make these objections to the decisions of
the supreme COURT
(a) In assuming that our statute was
taken from Montana, and overlook the
fact that our statute was revisision by
a code commission.
(b) Overlooking and disregarding the
sections governing the construction of
the code.
(c) In resorting to prohibited methods
of Interpretation and reading into the
statute an intent and language which is
not contained in the statute itself.
(d) In assuming that this court whose
power is judicial only, has legisla.
tive power to supply supposed omissions
of the Legislature
| (e) In exercising legislative power by
supplying and reading into our statute
the words ''the place named in the pet,.
tion"and thus by its arbitrary and unau.
thorized act of the court etfecting a
removal Of tho county seat of Pembina
county to Cavalier.
IT. In overlooking and disregarding
the case of State VS. Co. Commissioners
of Baker Co. Florida" cited in Appel
lants' brief which case is directly IN
point, under statute which is like our
statute. :his is the only case found by
counsp for either side which passes up.
on the validity of petition and an order
for election restricting the voter to
particular place, under statute like
ours and squarely sustains the content
ion of the City of Pembina. Whether
this controlling decision was over
looked or disregarded, we are entitl-
ed to have it considered.
(g) In disregarding our prior statutes
and the policy of the people and legisla-
lures Of this jurisdiction of maintaining
the right of the voter to free choice
and also in disregardlng contemporan-
eous construction.
(h) The court erred to the extent that
1t was influenced in announcing its decis-
ion by the vote in favor of Cavalier
which is quoted in the opinion as q
partial justification. and IN stating shat
no question is raised as to any prejudice
resulting in the county seat removal
from the manner of the placing of the
same on the ballot
ATTORNEYS DISCUSS THE ABOVE.
Referring back to (a) above, the attor-
neys first show that the statute of
North Dakota was the work of com.
mission and revision of the former
statute without material change, which
former statute was an open and not a
restrictive statute.
That both the Montana and the North
Dakota laws we're modelled from the
California law (Which is also agreed to
by the court in it's decision( That
Montana made its law strictly to CORE.
spond with its former law by addin: to
the California law the words "such place
to be named in the petition" while the
North Dakota commissioners and the
Legislature took the California law prac.
tically a> it is and as our law previously
was without adding the controlling and
restrictive words adopted by Montana
The court in its decision says ut (the N.
D. statute) is removal as distinguish.
ed from relocation statute" 1t was
adopted from Montana,-We conclude
that the words relative to the petition, >
were inadvertently omitted"
MONTANA LAW NOT LAW UNTIL MONTHS
LATER.
The above are the words of the court
in its decision. and are to the effect and
say that we got our law from Montana
and that our legislature inadvertently
omitted the words which mean the most
III Guo law duu WHICH, tudko Oil Cue uIu6F.
ence between the two sorts Of laws as
already defined herein. Now, the
Montana statute which the court
refers to. and by section numbers,
% part Of the revised code OF
h1oatsns which code was not sp-
proved until February 25th, 1895
and did not take effect until July
lst. 805, some four months after
our legislature adjourned. That is.
the N. d. statutes which this court has
decided we adopted from Montana
WERE mot THE STATUTES OF
MONTANA until about four months
afterward.
OUR Law LIKE CALIFORNIA Law.
The decision OF the supreme court
further says: In many other respects!
the statutes are nearly exact duplicates.
earmarks Of the place OF origin I
are prevalent that We concluded the
California statute has be@n the pattern
from which the Msntana statutes
..~..a~A y. -. 1880 - aaHA II i-n.a