The Mellette County pioneer. [volume] (Wood, Mellette County, S.D.) 19??-1971, 1913-01-10
HullNG ON RICHARDS LAW
me supreme Court Of Dakota Hands
Down an Opinion.

Pierre.-The supreme court dar,as
the application for writ of manaa mn.
10 compel the secretary of state Ia ac.
cept Endorsements for official appo;nt.
mehts made December IA under the
Richards primary law.
In defense OF the const;tutiona,;,v
vi 'he new primary law. called into
question by Attorney General John.
sons opinion. II. o. Richards claims Il
cannot honestly be construed 70 be
unconstitutional, because urinary
Jaw IS purely a party law to give a
regal form OF moral responsibility to
political organization procedure. and
the state constitution makes no regu.
iatlon for political parties. Richards
asserts II does not conflict with the
constitution, unless it infringes upon
individual rights. He says the people
are given wide latitude in regulation
OF political party transactions; that
they can bring in any reSvant subject
matter that will help regulate party
organizations. as such, without the
ieast fear of trespassing en- the con.
Slitution. He says the only subject
covered in the title. or in the law it.
self is the regulation of political par
~ transactions"
In an open letter TO Royal c. John
son, attorney general of South Dako-
Ia, Richards says in part:
The arguments put forth as an ex-
cuse for the non-enforcement OF the
law are weak and puerile. You claim
that the law repeats the present state
central committee; that even though
the committee meeting was held il
can only vote on applications previ.
ously filed with the secretary of state
and. finally. that the law Is unconsti
tutional because II infringes upon the
constitutional right OF the governor to
appoint state officers. The argument
that the committee is abolished or re.
pcalcd by the law is scarcely worthy OF
notice. as the law specifically recog
rzos the state central committee and
imposes duties on such committee
That the committee may recommend
for appointment any person that may
appear competent and suitable for Il
given position is very clearly apparent
because the law says the committee
shall determine who" shall receive
the committee Endorsement The word
who" is quite broad.
THAT the law infringes on the con-
gtiutional prerogatlves Of the govern.
or is equally rallacious The law ia
no wise seeks To control the judgment
or discretion Of the governor. IL sim.
nly provides method by which the
marty choice may be manifested and
leaves the governor free as ever tc
make his own selections for appoint
i've offices Of better man if he can,
or a weaker man If he dares. The pur'
pose OF the new primary law is 10 pet
ter the public service. Also to create
check and balance in party respon'
sibility 10 that end
eft is clearly evident that the pass
age of the law by the people Is not
sufficient. The people must likewise
control the administrative offices by
electing those in sympathy with the
legislation enacted to carry out us
enforcement in good faith; and that IL
what the new primary law is aiming to
do. Why should it be hindered in us
operation by any government of'icia'
who is obviously searching Tor eN'
cuses to delay It's operation