The Ward County independent. [volume] (Minot, Ward County, N.D.) 1902-1965, 1912-10-03

who were appointed to perform this
work at a meeting held, believe, in
1898, two years before I became State
Superintendent. When this bill was
finally presented to the County Super
intendents' section at the State Edu-
cational Association, held in Fargo, and
when was State Superintendent elect,
opposed it and as vigorously as
knew how, not because the bill did not
have great merit, but rather because it
was throwing into the State Education
al department an immense amount of
detail, clerical and expert labor for
which the bill made no provision for
additional and necessary clerical hire
in the Office itself. The bill, however,
was unanimously adopted by the Coun-
ty Superintendent, and over my earn
est protest The committee who draft
ed the bill came to Bismarck at the
opening Of the legislature, personally
had it introduced and directed the fight
for its passage. I myself agreeing not
to fight it in their attempt to secure its
adoption. That bill, as prepared, word
ed and interpreted by the County Sup
erintendents, was that the $1.OO fee
was to be used by the State Superin-
tendent to pay for the work incidental
to the examination Of the Answer pa
pers. The work to be done by the
State Superintendent and clerical force
of his office, and if that was found i'm
possible, then by such outside compe-
tent help as he was able to secure. l
might also add that this was not only
the Interpretation Of the County Sup
erintendents who drafted the bill, but
the Interpretation of the Educational
Committee Of both the Senate and the
House before whom the bill was dis
cussed in detail, inclusive Of the leg
islature that made it law, and the
then Attorney General of the state. 1
certainly had the very best Of author
ity for the Interpretation that I gave
to 1t. That it was in conflict with the
Constitution was neither thought of,
considered or discussed by any one at
any time who had any part in drafting,
Interpreting or securing its passage.
1t may interest you to know that the
BILL as originally introduced had an
emergency clause attached to it, that
would have made it a law directly
following it's passage, but through my
personal request the emergency clause
was stricken out and the bill DELAYED in
its operation as a law for six months.
The ect in itself. if there was no addi-
tional and abundant evidence, was suf-
ficent to show TINT was not seeking to
secure the passage Of an educational
measure that would bring additional
revenue to me as State Superintendent.
Indeed, 1t was not until five years az
ter 1t had become law that the oues
ton as to the constitutionality of what
was the universal Interpretation of the
law was brought up. Some Of the very
best and ablest attorneys Of the state.
held careful study of the wording of
the law, the intent of its authors and
the legislative body with that of the
Constitution itself, that both my inter-
probation and that Of Mr.. stockwell
was a correct one. It was not until
after three years Of Court litigation
that the Supreme Court of this state
handed down an opinion holding that
that Interpretation Of the law was not
correct. But you will note that in eiv-
ing down this opinion but three mem-
bers OF the Court held against Mr..
Stockwell and two held with him.
clearly indicated that even in the high
est Judicial tribunal of the state. there
was, to say the least, very good
and reasonable basis for both my DO
sition as to the intent OF the law and
mat OF Mr.. Stockwell's. So much
therefore. for the law itself.
II still remains, and you have a
right to know as well as the voters ~
this county as to the amount of money
II any, l secured by reason of nv in
depreciation and operation of that law