Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1913-11-19
Attorneys Make Bitter Attack
Continued from Page One.)

Continued from Page One.)
paid from the, premiums and in no
case from the funds Of the state.
Mr.. Lawrence laid down the propo-
sition that in America all government
is derived from the consent of the
governed, as against the European
system, where all power is derived
from the monarch; that it is and has
ever been the policy of u govern,
ment to protect the right of the cit
izen from invasion by the govern,
ment. His argument was devoted to
public ownership and he pointed out
that a strong centralized government
ever %encroaches upon the rights OF
the individual and that this act was a
letting down of the fars and that all
of the evils of public ownership might
and undoubtedly would follow a deci.
sion holding this act to De constltu,
tional. He contended that the law
was not an exercise of police power
but an invasion Of trade by rhe state;
the sole object Of the legislature be-
ing to regulate rates. The premiums
charged by the bonding company be-
ing higher than the legislature
thought they ought to charge. Gov
eminent, contended Mr.. Lawrence,
was the act Of controlling, directing
and shaping conduct and not engag-
ing in trade.
mi. Tenneson commended that the
establishment of this department was
the creation Of a monopoly, since it
required certain officials to bond with
it and did not allow private competl.
ton; that bonding was a distinct bus
mess both in this country and foreign
countries, and had been in use in
England for a considerable time and
was recognized by our statutes as
such: that it was primarily the duty
of officials to secure bonds and not
of the state to provide them; that
the constitutionality of the laws re-
curing bonds was probably uncon,I
stitutional. He. commended that the
act violated a large number Of the
provisions Of the state constitution,
which have to do with personal liber>
ty and the equal rights of property
and citizens. The state cannot en-
gage in trade without a special CON
st%itutional permit, as is instanced by
the terminal eleator and state high
way amendments which are now
pending in the state. The speaker
argued that she contemplated de
partment was not an internal i'm
provement and came within the pro-
hibition of the American attitude to-
80 nJ #aroy our ~ o,o+a1 MI nfnyfnvb,,n in
private business.
Tracy Bangs, on behalf Of the plain-
tiff, contended that the contemplat-
ed bond of the act was not in reality
a bond at all-that an instrument to
be a bond must have an obliger and
an obligee, neither of which was pro-
vided by the act. The commissioner
Of insurance might elect to pay al
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 con-
fers arbitrary and judicial powers on
the insurance commissioner.
Mr.. Bangs further commended tlat
the $3.50 on a thousand levied on the
communities for the bonding of their
officials was an illegal tax. He re-
viewed the growth Of taxation and
pointed out that a tax can be levied
only for a specific purpose and that
the burden must fall proportionally
on every member Of the community
or the property Of every member.
Here, no community a be taxed for
the benefit Of another. This act con
templates taxing one community Tor
the benefit Of another. Different
counties have different amounts to
raise for the bonds Of their officials,
therefore, the burden falls %unequally
upon different communities.
Mr.. Miller will present the states
side OF tbs cast today.