Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1914-11-13

UrVNlUN DI JUDuL ll0A
Certain Institutions Receive Full
Appropriations Others
Suffer Gut.
Under a decision handed down yes
terday by the state supreme court,
the distribution OF the four mills tax
levy as made originally by the state
board Of equalizati0n,is Is upheld.
Justice Fisk writessthis opinion and
the position of the equalization board
is upheld upon every point. Upon the
rehearing it was shown that the un-
disputed facts are the reverse of
those stipulated by counsel through
error and inadvertanee to be correct
at the first hearing. f
Governor Hanna in hfsr petitions to
the court for rehearing gayn 1Atlls.
putable proof of the reasonablen
of the boards levy. Upon the show !
ing of the proper figures, the court
Immediately amended its findings and
holds that "in making such a levy the
board should provide In full for those
appropriations covering the expenses
of maintaining the three coordinate
branches of the state government
and those for the penal institutions
and for the insane and feeble minded
All other appropriations both stand
ing and special should be reduced on
a prO-rata basis to such sum as Will
bring the total appropriations within
the constitutional four mill limit"
Joint Session. .- III, ,.5
The supreme court aAd the sbDarC
of equalization will meet in'tjoint ses-
sion this morning, at 10 O'clock, for
the purpose of determining about 40
items of appropriations. A question
has arisen as to what constitutes the
executive department OF state. Some
claim it is only thorse mentioned In
the constitution, whileothers claim 1t
covers important offices ouch as fire
marshal, board of4eoEsrQl ana ,OtheTs
which are zrsaiiyga sdft Gof ths execu-
tive department There are also ah-
solute necessities which should not
be cut. For instance, there is great
need for another building at the in
sane asylum and need for improve
ments at the penitentiary, the pOpula-
ton of these Institutions increasing
SO rapidly that this Is an absolute
necessity.
This will prove an interesting ses'
sion, owing Ito the many varied in
terests involved. a@
The court will render supplement-
ary opinion upon the proceedings.
Justice Fisk's opinion follows:
"a rehearing was granted herein
upon the application Of the Attorney
General who does not question the
correctness of the above opinion upon
the facts there before us, but asserts
that such facts were agreed tC
through mistake and inadvertance, on
the part of respondents counsel and
the state auditor, and that the true
facts disclose that the .exising appro-
priatiOns to be met by the state levy
far. exceed the constitutional limit OF
tour mills and that it is therefore i'm
pera.ive that some of such apprOpria.
tiQns must be entirely omitted from
consideration in making the levy OF
that they must be materially scaled
down. Upon such rehearing further
testimony was heard from which il
conclusively appears that the facts
are as now contended for by the at
tOrney general.
The perplexing question therefore
arises as to the proper method to be
pursued by the State Board OF Equal
zation in dealing with this situation
Has the board the power to single
out or select among the various ap.
priations in excess of those for the
expenses of the three branches of the
state government which are PREFER.
ed, such appropriations as in it's judg
ment ought to be preferred and pro
vided for in the levy, or must it ii
making the forced reduction either
give priority in all such appropria
tions in all such appropriations by 9
pro-rating method?
Board Cannot Select.
1--WE are clear that it cannot do the
first. This is purely Legislative
function which has not, nor can il
be delegated to the board. The pow.
er of the legislature in the premises
is plenary, but it has not spoken
hence one of the latter methods ol
dealing with the situation must be
pursued by the board. Should prefer
ence be given to those appropriations
which are prior in point of tilAe
This is the holding Of the Colorado
court in People VS.. Board of Equali
zation, 20 Col 22O, from which we
quote: While no authorities have
been cited upon the question, anc
none have been found by the court
we think that where excessive levies
have been made, the true rule is t.
allow the levies precedence in the
order by which they were passed, Civ
ing preference when necessary tt
levies for the purpose Of meeting ap
propriations for the support of the
executive, Legislative and judicial de
partments of the government as indi
Gated in In re Appropriations, 13 Col
316.' The ground for such holding II
not stated but OF necessity it must b
CONTINUED on Page y