The Fargo forum and daily republican. [volume] (Fargo, N.D.) 1894-1957, 1913-11-19

the U. S, treasurer was contemplated
by a bill introduced into the present.
congress and that its constitutionality
was never questioned was cited. This
attempted legislation resulted from
the fact that seventeen bonding COM
panies had formed a combination and
boosted rates from so to 800 per cent
and that through a period of fifteen
years they had furnished Indemnity
to the government and had only paid
SO per cent of the losses actually &C.
curing. That they mad raised on
bonds for deputy marshals from So to
SO in two years and from $40 to SIS
in the same period on the bonds Of
marshals.
The state laid down the broad prop
osition that all Legislative power not,
delegated to the federal congress is
vested in the state legislature and.
that since there was no prohibition,
relative to bonding public officials and,
making 1t a qualification for office,
that the legislature was clearly within
its rights in ~enacting chapter 1914.
The legislature is free to pass any
law which it is not prohibited from
passing by constitutional enactment,
and there being no constitutional limi-
tation against the creation of a new
department Of state government a law
creating a bonding department must
stand as a valid exercise of legislative
discretion. This is especially true be-
cause Of the fact that such department
will afford a means for a more efficient
and economical transaction of a
branch of the public business of the
minor municipalities directly under
the control n regulation Of the
state. 'D .-. ..#- a.. "
Counsel for. the bonding; companies
in their argument, having cited about
fifteen provisions of the state and
federal constitution which it was
claimed were violated by the act in
question, the attorney general answer
ed the minor objections first and then
considered what seemed to him the
two main objections.
1. 1t was objected by. the bonding
, companies that the state could not
create a bonding department for the
reason that the state was prohibited
from engaging in any work OF internal
Improvement. = ,s.''" s =
3. 1t was commended that the state
could not create a bonding depart
ment for to, do so would create a
monopoly, which the legislature is
prohibited from granting.
In answer to these objections the
attorney general commended that the
provision in the state constitution pro-
! llIpLlltlR LtiS StdLS lIOIl All oily
work of, internal improvement was
designed for, the purpose of protecting
the finances of the state against lavish
expenditures 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
against repetition of the resulting ifs
cal chaos. The legislation in question
however, was not open to attack
ground for the reason that 1t does not
authorize the, expenditure of any state
money in support of the bonding de-
apartment. Such department. being
wholly supported and all losses PAID
Tout of the proceeds Of the business
TRANSACTED blythe department md the
credit Of. the state Is in no way
pledged.
In answer to the second objection
the attorney general contended thai
the petitioner could not with goot
grace contend that the legislature was
granting q monopoly In view of the
fact. that the bids for the bonds cover
ing the last biennial period showed
the various companies t~ransacting d
bonding business lin the state of NORTH
Dakota had combined; that competl.
ton was eliminated and that they
were already, therefore, enjoying ID
monopoly. This, he said, should stor
them from claiming that the stats
~created al monopoly. He further arga-
ed that the constitutional provision
prohibiting the legi 'ature from Great
li.g 4 monopoly only APPLIES I'M SUI