The pioneer express. [volume] (Pembina, Dakota [N.D.]) 1883-1928, 1911-08-25

a Y. LOGAN. Manager.
The attorneys for the city OF Pembina
are H. B. Spiller and E. w. Conmy of
Pembina and Ball, Watson, Young &
Lawrence Of Fargo. The attorneys for
the city of Cavalier are VIM. McMurchie,
D. j. Laxdal, Geo. Robbins and Geo. A.
Bangs.
The decision of the supreme court was
written by Judge Goss, all the rest of
the justices concurring.
COURT DID NOT DECIDE WHETHER WE
WERE, OR WERE NOT, PROPERLY IN COURT.
That the court erred IN not deciding
the first proposition that ''Prohibition is
the proper remedy and is available" !"
How can the court consider the merits
until it has decided that the remedy is
available? 1t is not decided. We re
specially suggest that decision upon
this question is necessary.
TRA1LL COUNTY CASE not APPLICABLE.
That the court erred in adopting and
applyn & to this case and as partially
controlling its decision the Trail Co.
case. a
In Hillsboro case the question, was sif
after petition and election, could inter
ested parties then come in and raise the
question whether the petition had a
sufficient number of signatures, there
having been no previous request for an
opportunity to examine and for time in
time in which to do it. In the Pembina
case the question is whether the electors
had right to examine the petition be-
fore final action was taken by the board
and VII ther the board had right t0
give such electors time to make examlna-
tion. /
TAXPAYERS HAD LEGAL RIGHT TO EXAMINE
That the court erred in not deciding
whether taxpayers had the right to ex-
anime, but arbitrarily ruled that in this
case the board did not lose jurisdiction
by their refusal to allow
such examination. That as matter of
law the taxpayers were entitled to
examine and have time given them to
examine.
COURT DID NOT STATE FACTS CORRECTLY
That the court erred in ITS statement
Of facts which occurred at the time Of
the presentation Of the petition which
facts are matter Of record particular.
ly as to the time taken for the examina.
tion by the county board and as to the
claim that they were sufficiently we'll in
formed to pass upon the qualifications
and signatures of their own knowledge.
Also as to the time when the written re.
quest was presented to the board which
the court says was 'just prior to ad-
journment."
1T WAS RFQUEsT
That the court erred in stating that
the contents of the document filed I've
fore the board was a demand" instead
of a request.
COURT NOT FAIR In STATEMENT,
The court erred in saying "That in
the absence of some good reason there
for, to adjourn at the request Of an slect-
or or his attorney that such party might
50 tisfy himself privately and in bis own
way on the same matters that the Co
commissioners were then determining,
in that, such statement is not fair
and proper way Of stating the actusl
facts as shown by the record.
COURT SAYS ..No RULE OF Law FOR DELAY"
The court erred in saying, ''that it
knew no rule Of law requiring the delay
of public business ut the request Of .
private individual concerning matters in
which he may have Ut most only the
same concern as the general public" In
. Nebraska case cited, that court, in
brief, stated That county seat petition
when filed with the county clerk be.
comes public document and open tol
inspection, and q reasonable time must
he given, xhen desired tor that purpose.
And five days would not seem an nnrea
sonablc time 70 make thorough exam-
NATION ofS8 30 snsm q scatter,d over a
paris Of the county. = Pembina City
asked Tor two weeks TO look up about
3lStNs names. the North Dakota conrt
says I'll had no good rsasoap for dslay.
Thoagh Il Was also stats - the writes
!. y, ,....,k that kharS vaa nm - H. a.