The Fargo forum and daily republican. [volume] (Fargo, N.D.) 1894-1957, 1913-04-05
Criticism of the Commission
System Answered in Detail
Supreme Court of N. D.
Commended the System
Ii. TwichelI, Analyses Mayor Sweets Statements Re
gardng the Proposition
PRs 2Fs%FwTEFEEyT

ment Of public affairs. He votes on
questions the same rs the other mem
beers, but no veto power.
..... North Dakota Plan.
The five members. are elected at
large and make up what is known as
the board of commissioners (this
name originated with the Galveston
form, and being the manner in which
such body is designated in most of the
commission laws). One member is
known as president, being elected as
such, such commissioners by their
vote designate one member who h
be at the head of each of the following
divisions Of the ctty's business, and
who is responsible for the routine OPP
erations Of such government: Con-
missioner of finance and revenue;
commissioner. of police and fire; COM
missioner of streets and improve
ments; commissioner Of waterworks
and sewerage. The president is the
executive officer of the city. and 1t is
made. his duty to see that all laws are
enforced. He votes with the other
commissioners, but he has no veto
power. Consideration In comparison
Of the division of powers under, the
two forms should convince anyone
that under the commission system in
North Dakota the president has the
sAA PS"S4 SS ~ SANS1A AN 1ANNS "a NAt
der the Des Moines charter. More
than this, the powers Of the president
under u system are practically iden-
teal with the powers conferred on the
like official, be he known as president
Or mayor under the various commits
sion systems in force in the twenty
states providing for this form Of city
government, p
sas T. No power of Veto.
Mr.. Sweet, and others, decry this
system because the president Of the
board is not given the power of veto.
Let US see how the veto power in the
hands Of the president would work
out in fact: An ordinance is passed
by vote of three commissioners "a. ma
iority) favoring it. The president
having opposed such ordinance vetoes
it.. To pass it over his veto must nee
essarily under all rules of legislation
require more votes than those of the
majority originally passing it. Conse-
quently, the least number of votes by
which it would be able to pass a meas
ure over the presidents veto would be
four, in other words, to pass q meas
ure over the veto of the president
would require the vote Of every mem
Der of the commission other than the
president himself, resulting in the abb
solute control of business and legisla-
NAOAA ~ AAV q III SAO(AA ~AAA ~~AJ S@N~
commissioner who may stand with
him. Can one conceive of anything
more dangerous to a democratic syS-
tenn of government than the veto.
power in the hands Of the president OF
a commission of five? Study this
proposition over and see If it does not
practically make the mayor a
The mayors statement as to the
powers of the president being reduced,
being erroneous, necessarily his con-
cluSion that 1.-The consequence can al
most certainly be the control of the
entire party by the vicious element"
is groundless; this especially in view
of the proved success of the commits
sion plan, both from a moral and fin
ancial standpoint, in every city where
1t has been adopted.
Cumulative Voting.
Our mayor next makes this state
ment: '"The supreme court has de-
cided that cumulative voting is not
permitted, and in fact condemns the
whole law by admitting that they so
rule, because they cannot tell from the
law itself what 1t does mean
This question arose In the proceed
ing brought for a writ Of mandamus
to require the city auditor of Minot
to p and distribute ballots d.
recting the voter to vote for two COM
mISSloHeTS, ouiy NIhSrS aI Suoh SiSS-
ton being only two commissioners to
be elected), and that the words 1.-TWO
votes for one'' be omitted from tho ball
lot; ballots having peen prepared for
use containing the last restriction.
The supreme. court in such proceed
ing held cumulative voting not to be
permitted by our law, and since this
decision the cumulative method Of
voting is no part of our commission
law. and could as properly be used by
Mr. Sweet as an argument against the
Continued on Page, Fifteen.