The pioneer express. [volume] (Pembina, Dakota [N.D.]) 1883-1928, 1911-09-22

used the utmost diligence ia going to
court, and the reason as We said before,
that the case was not tried on it's merits
bsfore election, was because the srbi-
trary action Of the county, board. acting
under advice and desires Of the Cavalier
committee and it's attorneys,madeit i'm
possible. 81.
The Cavalier committee as We believe,
and We believe the supreme court will
say the same, made q big mistake in pc
titioning, resolving and forming the bal
lot 30 thar the voter could only vote for
Cavalier and not for any other town.
That the Cavalier committed knew all
about this matter beforehand is evidenc-
ed by the fact that they had four years
previously attempted to change the re.
moval-of-the-c county-seat law SO that it
would be that kind of law, but the
legislature turned the proposed amend
ment down. But in spite of this fact,
knowing that our law permitted the vot-
er to vote for "any town in the county
which he prefers,' as the law says,
they attempted to bulldoze the question
through, hoping by prepondrance of
votes to get 1t through some way. The
reason that ehey did this, the reason
that they did not want any other town
in the county to share IN the chances Of
election, was when the county seat ques
ton was voted on before, the voters for
towns other than Pembina and Cavalier
were sufficient to prevent the removal.
That's why the Cavalier committee did
not want to let any other town in the
deal. They say that Pembina Is selfish.
Pembina admits the fact. But when
Cavalier wants everybody to believe
that she is working solely for the. dear
people-Cavaller is simply a hypocrite.
The Chronicle has much to say, about
the rights Of the majority. It forgets
that courts are more particularly insti-
tuted to protect the rights of the minor
tiy. But when it talks majority it also
forgets that when it comes to county
seat questions that it is not the majority
of votes in any one county that counts,
it is the majority of votes of the whole
state as cast by their representatives in
the legislature. That is what the su-
preme court has now to determine. Not
what Cavalier says, not what Pembina
says, but what the legislature says. y,
It is not only the rights of "a few peo.
pie in the city Of Pembina" that the 81.
preme court have to think Of, but the
rights of the people Of the whole state
There are many other county seats id.
volved in this question which to US il
but local. 80, -.
It takes two things to remove county
seat in North Dakota, one is the requir.
ed number Of votes and the other is to
proceed as the law requires.
1t the Cavalier committee to whom
the matter was intrusted. has taken due
care to observe the Law. the county sea,
will be removed. But IL the, supreme
court decides that they have wantonly,
selashly and arbitrarily hNlldozed the
minority, by refusing the Pembina peo.
pie the opportunity Of examining the pc,
tition. and by SO wording the petition,
and the resolution granting the elsction
and ballot 80 that no other town except
Cavalier had chance in the election,
then the taxpayers will know who issfe.
sponsible for the bills rendered the
county for attorneys fees and other ex-
penses connected with the appeal 70 the
supreme court, and the friends Of Cava.
lier will know who to blame for the bun
giles which even at the present status Of
the case puts Cavalier in SO precarious a
position.