Jamestown weekly alert. [volume] (Jamestown, Stutsman County, D.T. [N.D.]) 1882-1925, 1914-04-02
GRAND FORKS u"
REFUSES TO PAY.
Its Bills For Insurance. MAN.
damus Proceedings.

ing to force the state to pay for bills
for insurance ON the university
buildings. In January last the state
auditing board disapproved of insur-
ance bills from Grand Forks agen-
cies amounting to $12,602.95. This
refusal was for the reason that the
legislature of 1913 repealed the law
whereby insurance on public build
ings was to be paid for by the state,
and required that the institutions
themselves should pay for their own
insurance out of their own funds.
Every other institution in the state
has been paying for it's insurance out
of local funds since July l, 1913,
when the new law went into effect.
The reason for this law was that
under the old system there was no
limit to what might be paid for in
surance on public buildings and
state institutions. The cost of this
amounted approximately to $4,000
a year. By requiring the institu-
tions to pay for their own insurance,
it would prevent over-insurance and
unnecessary expenditures.
An attorney of Grand Forks, acting
under the instructions of the univer-
sity board of trustees, has applied
for a writ of mandamus against the
state auditing board, consisting of
the governor, attorney general, sec
retary of state, the state treasurer
and the state auditor, who have been
ordered to appear on April II and
show cause why the bill of the
Northern Fire & Marine Insurance
company, for 1904 should not be
paid. The State university has evil
IDENTIFY plenty of money to pay it's
insurance from the appropriations
granted it,, and from the one-mill
educational institution tax. The
university has received from the
state during 1913 the sum Of $780,
s53.16 and refuses to pay for the
insurance on it's buildings on the
ground of technicality that the re-
peal of the old law. is unconstitu-
tional. In 1913 the State univer-
sity received as it's share of the one
mill tax the sum of $102,078.93.
While the institution has raised the
question of the unconstitutionality
of the one-mill tax, when it came to
paying for it's insurance, it never
questioned the law when accepting
revenue derived from the tax. The
attorney general has rendered an
opinion that Chapter Al, which re-
peals the insurance law, is unconsti-
tutional, but no opinion has been
handed down on the constitutional
ity of the one-mill tax.
If the Supreme Court should de-
eide that Chapter Al is unconstitu-
tional it will affected appropriations
for many purposes Of state govern
ment, and will make decidedly
lively mix-up in state affairs. 1t
would no doubt again bring up the
question of the constitutionality of
what is known as the unlimited"
appropriation, according to which
there is no limit to the amount to
be expended for a certain purpose.
If the payment of insurance pre-
miums must be made az before the
repeal of the law, then it will be
paid on such an unlimited" appro-
priation. In the, Capitol Commits
sion" case, some years ago. the Su-
preme Court handed down decision
that an unlimited" appro-
priation was unconstitutional. The
Supreme Court at that time held the
legislative body could not delegate
the power to place the limit on ex-
penditures, but must fix that limit.
1t was on the failure of the legis-
lature to fix the specific amount to.
be used for the building of the ex-
ecutive mansion, proposed in the bill,
that this decision, in part, was made.
made.
If the constitutionality of the mill
tax should be questioned in the
courts, and the courts hold the law
unconstitutional, it would seriously
inconvenience the several educa-
tional institutions now receiving rev.
enue from it.
The state hospital weather rec
ord for March ahowa tho minimum