Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1911-02-05

enables II III all SUCH cases 10 ice ant
affrmatively' act upon the wisest meth
cd, it may we'll be held up to the at
ltention of the civilized world as TIL
only perfect and all-wise egislativ'
body known to history. am unable tt
grasp any such principle. Apply thi:
test to our revenue laws, as well as tc
many others, and fear that they woult
shortly cease to operate, and thu state
and all its subdivisions would be fount
bankrupt. The logical, as well as prac'
tical effect of adhering to this doctrine
would only resllt III disaster, as must
be clearly apparent.
1t is said in the majority opinion
that, by adopting this measure and
declaring constant ratio of 80 per cent
between the number so determined and
the number necessary to make non1-
! nation applicable alike to state, district
and county offices, as before suggest
ed, the legislature has declared \ clas-
sifcation of objects upon which the
law shall operate not only i'll the state
at large but in each county of the state,
and that to render a law valid it must
not violate the principle that the party
faction authorized to make a nomina-
ton shall in each county of the state
bear constant, just and uniform re-
lation to the basis upon which it is
classified, or, in other words. to the
party strength i'll that county," 1t then
proceeds to assume that the party
strength is evidenced by the party vote
at the primary rather than at the gen.
eral election next preceding, and that
because the statute fixes the measure of
the party strength as its vote at the
general election rather than at the pri-
mary, it is invalid. In their discussion
of this principle, and possibly out of
undue consideration for the court, as
constituted when the Anderson case
was decided, it is said with reference
to that decision that "the court from
the very necessity of the case was COM
PEELED to form its judgment largely
upon abstract principle and to base the
same upon facts that might be expected
to arise out of the practical operation
of the law rather than on those that had
arisen. While, therefore. we adhere
to much of the general principle an
nounced in the case of State VS.. Ander-
son. majority of this court, under
the additional facts now brought to its
feel irnpelled to a con-
clusion materially at variance with that
herein announced" In other words,
that the difference between the votes
of the election of 1908 and the primary
in 1910 furnishes reason, not former
ly before this court, for holding the
provision in question invalid. This
reason leads to the result that when a
party is on the increase and the vote
at any election is greater than that at
the preceding election, the regulation
or classification of the statute will be
reasonable and therefore valid as to
that party, but at the same time in
valid as to any party whose adherent
decrease in number from year to year.
To me, this is a novel doctrine. But
assuming this line of reasoning to be
applicable and proper, it appears to me
that the court has omitted factor ne
cessary to be considered in determin-
ing the reasonableness or unreasonable
ness of the regulation or classification,
and which must be stated to enable
one to arrive at a correct conclusion.
Notwithstanding the decrease shown
in the vote of one party between the
1908 election and the 1910 primary, the
members of that party resumed their
allegiance at the 1910 general election,
and the vote of that party regained its
normal proportions. The returns show
that in one of the counties referred to
the vote of that party in November,
1910, exceeded the party vote cast in
1903, while in others it was not dis
proportionate, although slightly small
Ter. I have not taken pains to make
all examination of the vote cast in
counties not named, but am con.ens to
suggest that the figures given, when
by those of the same
party cast at the 1910 general election
fall somewhat short of furnishing the
mathematical demonstration OF the I'm
rcasonableness and invalidity of the
law, attempted, but that if they tend to
Prove anything in this direction. it il !
ina, enough members of one party
we're so apathetic, that they neglected
to participate in making nominations or
that many in some counties were SO
disloyal to their party and Indifferent TO
the prohibitions of the statute that they
preferred a voice in making nominal
tons of another party to having their
own represented on the ballot, and
thereby prevented nominations being
made in some instances. /
Applying the reasoning of the major
ity opinion to these facts leads to the
further conclusion that the regulation
or classification complained of was TN
reasonable in June, 1910, but on the
return Of the voters to the party in
1910, this provision be-
came reasonable again. If the question
is one of determining when the party |
census must be taken on which to base
a decision of the question whether a |
party has acted, or expressed its opin- |
ion as to candidates for nomination,
then it is purely question of judg-
ment. No party is likely to complain
that it cast large vote at a general
election. Its ground for complaint is
not against the law when its members
desert the party and participate in the
nomination of the candidates of anoth- |
er party at the primary. Its primary
lies in the direction of the ad-
vocacy of principles and the nomination
Of candidates which appeal to its men,
bers to lend them their support. The