The evening times. [volume] (Grand Forks, N.D.) 1906-1914, 1913-11-19
BONDING LAW uSURPS
THE PUbuC'S RIGHTS
CONTINUED From Page H.

lkt puBLlCS kIGhlS
tCo%ntinued From Page IL
a special constitutional permit as IS
instanced by the terminal elevator ana
state highway amendments which are
now pending in the state. The speak,
er argued that the contemplated de-
partnlent was not an internal I'M
provement and came within the pro-
hibition Of the American attitude
toward governmental interference in
private business.
Not in Reality a Bond.
Tracy Bangs. OIL behalf Of the
plaintiff. contended that the contem-
plated bond Of the act was not in
reality a bond at all-that an instru-
n1ent to be a bond must have an oo-
Tiger and an obligee, neither Of which
wa provided by the act. The COM
missioner Of insurance might elect to
pay, a loss or he might not and that
the state could not be coerced since
there was or might not be any fund to
pay the obligation. The act confers
arbitrary n judicial powers on the
insurance commissioner.
Mr.. Bangs further c%ontenied that
the $3.50 IN a thousand levied on the
4OA tAbS OOI1uAlS VI LlIClk
officials was an illegal tax. He re-
viewed the growth of taxation and
pointed out that a tax can he levied
only for a specific public purpose and
that the burden must fall proportion
ally. ON every member Of the commu-
nifty or the property Of every mem
Der. Mofe,sn no community can, be. tax
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS fhfs act
contcmplates taxing n community
for thu s1onoGf ~ orn$Iaar rifTo~o~<
counties have different amounts to
raise for the bonds of their officials.
therefore. the burden falls unequally
upon different communities.
Legislature IL Free.
The attorney general arguing in
support OF the bonding law, argued
that the legislature Is free to pass any
law which is not prohibited from
passing by constitutional enactment.
and there being no constitutional lin
itation against the creation of a new
department Of state government a law
creating a bonding department must
stani as a valid exercise of legislative
discretion. This is especially rue be-
cause of the tact that such depart
nent will afford a means for a more
efficient and economical transaction of
a branch Of the public business If the
minor municipalities directly under
the control and regulation Of the
state.
Counsel for the bonding companies
in their argument. having cited about
fifteen provisions of the state AMI fed
eral constitution. which it was claim
ed We're violated by the act in ques-
ton. the attorney general answered
the minor objections first and then
considered what seemed to him the
tw" main objections.
L.. IT, was objected by the bonding
companies that the state could not
create a. bonding department for the
reason that h state was prohibited
from engaging in any work. Of inter-
nal improvement.
2. 1t was commended that the state
could not create IL bonding depart
ment for to do so would create q
monopoly. which the legislature is
prhibited from granting.
Against lavish Expenditure.
In answer to these objections the
attorney general commended that the
provision in the state constitution pro-
hibits the state from engaging in any
work Of internal Improvement was
designed for the purpose Of protecting
the finances OF the state against lavish
expenditure for physical improve
ments Of various sorts The occasion
for attacking such provision arose out
Of the lavish expenditure Of monies
by state governments in aid of rail.
road construction and similar works.
and It was thought wise to guard
eainst repetition Of the resulting is-
cal chaos. The legislation in question,
however. was not per to attack
ground for the reason that 1t does not
authorize the expenditure Of any state
money III support Of the bonding de-
partment. Such department being
wholly supported and all losses paid
out Of the products Of the business
credit Of the state is in nc way
pledged.
Companies In Combination.
In answer to the second objection
the attorney general commended that
the petitioner could not with good
grace contend that the legislature was
granting a monopoly in view Of the
fact that the bids for the bonds cover-
ing the last biennial period showed
bonding business in the state Of North
Dakota had combined: that competi-
ton was eliminated an dthat they
were already. therefore. enjoying q
estop them from claiming that the
state created a monopoly. He further
argued that the constitutional pro-
vision prohibiting the Legislature from
creating a monopoly only applies In
a way as to prevent the state
from giving to individuals special
privileges and monopolies. and that
1t has no application whatever to any
law which has for its object the prop
er regulation and control of a branch
of public business, even though such
and control be accomplish.
ed through the fundamentally Of a
which is given sole con.
troll. whatever monopoly results being
beneficial to the state and not detri-
mental.
.lIave No Vested Rights.
Furthermore. he stated. that the
business iu question. namely. the bus.
mess Of underwriting the bonds OF
public oficials for proft is not a bust