Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1915-10-09

PETITIONS
|NS''UF { FF|C|ENT
Supreme Court Holds Two Peti-
tions Can Not be Joined
as One
IMMIGRATION BOARD
WILL NOW ORGANIZE
Mandamus Writ Issued Yesterday
Compelling Board to
Organize

b.. ., sf-7a.art
Organize
The state supreme court yesterday
handed down a decision on the ;mmi-
grafton case, which is Of far-reacliing
interest. The court holds that tine
petitions seeking 70 referend the hill
and the appropriation We're not suffl-
cient to refer it,
The case las Attracted wide atten-
tion, as the immigration bill was one
of the three bills wiich the secretary
of state held were referred by reason
of the petitions filed in his office. Cne
of the petitions related to the apprc-
priation to carry on the immigration
work; the other related to the entire
bill. Neitner had sufficient names to
refer the bill alone, 'blt combined the
petitions had a sufficient number of
names to refer the appropriation
clause in the immigration bill, provid.
ed they could be legally combined.
TIE state immigration board did not
Organize because Of this fact. Some
time ago a nlandamus proceeding was
started by Captain |. P. Baker, in a.:
effort to compe! the board to organize
and Garry on their work. The case
was argued before the supreme cour;
several weeks ago, Attorney Benton
Baker of this city appearing for the
petitioner.
Upholds Attorney General.
Tle decision of the supreme court
upholds the contention of Attorney
General Henry J. Linde, when the
matter first came up, that the petit
tions could not be combined, and is
also a distinct victory for Attorney
Baker, who made his first appearance
before the supreme court In arguing
the case.
The holding of tic court in regard
to the sufficiency of the petitions is
as follows: =
% To authorize ttle two petitions
to be treated as one both must dea!
with tho same subject matter and
seek the same object. !,
(2) AN affirmative vote on the peti.
tion to referend the entire act WousG
revoke the repeating section of Chap.
234, IS. l.. 1915, expressly repeating
earlier statutes, and thereby rein
state the old statutes making stand
ing biennial appropriation Of 100000
for immigration purposes and differ
ent board of immigration; while an
affirmative vote upon reference of Sec.
only of Chap. 234 would leave tle
o~l int. n+h lint 11yifh ~
preparation or funds for its use Hence
the two petitions are entirely dissimi-
lar in objects sought as they are in
subject matter. They are separate
petitions and cannot be treated as one
only for the referending of Sec. Z
alone.
(3) That the petitioners to referend
the entire act nave assigned in their
petition as reason for it's reference
that it entails "a needless waste Of
public money" and, 'is needless bur-
den of taxation with no benefit to
the people of the state" does not au'
thorize it to be treated as q petition
for reference of Sec 7, the approprr.
alton only, as petitioners for refer
ence of the entire act must lbe held to
have understood tle law and that in
effect they petitioned for a reinstate-
ment of the old biennial apprcpria-
tion for $1O,oO0 while those petition
ing for only reference of the appro-
priation, Sec. I, desire no nppropria-
ton whatever Under no reasoning
can tie two classes of petitioners De
said to either desire or seek the same
result. The two petitions must 3e
held to be- conflicting and lncompa:,'
lble and cannot be consolidated as one
petition.
az Petitions cannot 'be combined
when to do so will override or ignore
the desires of one set of petitioners
as expressed in their petition.
% AS a referendum sets aside or
the will of the people as ex-
pressed by Legislative act. petitions
for a referendum should be required
to comply strictly VITA the mandatory
constitutional provisions under which
a referendum is authorized. To re-
quire less is the equivalent of amend
ing said constitutional provisions by
court fat, as we'll as to be derelict
in enforcing the constitution itself.
(6) Chap. 234 is in full force and
effect and no part thereof has been
referred. The refcrendums attempted
Of the act and Sec. thereof, have
both failed.
(7) Writ ordered issued, but no
courts will be taxed as the public o.
ficials conc erned were justified in cb-
tanning a judicial determination G:
the questions involved before disburs-
ing public funds with any doubt Of,
Ghem right to do so.
- q q q = = : ): :. = = = = 4 :