The Mitchell capital. (Mitchell, Dakota [S.D.]) 1879-1918, 1914-01-29
TO DEFINE S. D.
CONSTITUTION
THIS WILL BE REQUIRED IN
PHONE INJUNCTION SUIT.
HEARD TO-DAY IN COURT.

Definition of the constitution of
the state of South Dakota, which
prohibits the state from engaging in
the work OF internal improvement,
viii be necessary by Judge Robert b.
Trip, OF Yankton, who this fore
noon heard oral argument in the in
junction brought by T. J. Spangler
TO restrain the city from building the
telephone plant authorized at the
special election on June 10, 1913.
In outlining the argument for the
injunction, T. II. Nun, OF Huron, of
counsel for Mr.. Spangler, declared
That inasmuch as the constitution
.inhibits the state from making inter
nal revenue, the provision would APP
ply to cities as a part of the state.
Hence, the legislative act OF four
years ago, permitting cities t. build
and operate municipal telephone
plants, was constitutional.
The trainers of South Dakota's
constitution declared Mr.. Null.
followed the theory of the states to
the east, where it was their purpose
10 erect Il bulwark against the UNI
wise expenditure of public moneys in
times OF political excitement or UNI
due stress. Without this limitation.
it would be possible for the state to
easily eXpend vast sums and plunge
itself deeply into debt"
Other basic points i'll the argument
of the plaintiff, Mr.. Spangler, were
that the number Of votes cast AT the
special telephone election in June
We're not d majority OF the voters OF
the city, and that the city is restrict
ed in its Indebtedness to improve
ments for public purposes. which
the proposed telephone system was
contended not to be.
Argument offered against the in
junction by City Attorney Lauritz
Miller and Mayor a. f.. Hitchcock,
opposed tlatly the contention OF Mr..
SpanglerS counsel. 1T was argued
that the most recent decision of the
state supreme court declared that the
number of voters at any special cleo
ton was conclusive Of the number
In the city AT the time. This is from
the recent case OF Treat VS.. the City
OF Plankinton.
In answer to the contention thai a
municipal telephone plant was not
an Improvement for public purposes.
counsel for the city argued that the
fact the legislature had enacted a
statute providing for the construction
and operation of municipal systems
was proof that it was for Il public
purpose.
Flat denial was made to the argu-
ment that the states limitation as to
internal improvements applied to
cities and towns. BY the term
state in the constitution. declared
the city attorney, the trainers did
not mean to imply anything but
the state organization itself.
This is shown" said Mr.. Miller,
by the fact that the states limit of
Indebtedness for internal improve
ments is 100000. But, under the
same act. the cities are given power
to have d legal limit of Indebtedness
for internal improvements of Is per
cent of their assessed valuation. Thus
under it's 1913 assessed valuation OF
nearly $S,00O.000, Mitchell could
have a legal limit of nearly $1,000.
600. The comparison between it and
the States limit shows that a distin.
ction was intended between the cit.
les and the state, and that the tern
'state'-is not inclusive OF the otEer.'
Judge Trip did not set "a time
When his decision in the case would
be rendered: