Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1915-02-05

this bill would cause, nor 10 tne lao'
of the necessity for a State Elforce
ment Commissioner; we Will, no"
ever, call attention to the Language
used by our supreme court in TN
case of Elk Parte-Corliss Is, N. u.
at page 475, in commenting upon tn:
necessity for a State Enforcement
Commissioner, quoting: "The fac
that these appointive officers (mean
ing an Enforcement Commissioner
and his deputies) might or would dis
charge the duties better than the OF
ticer provided for in the Constitution
(1neaning county sheriff. is not mate
rial. If these latter officers fail to
discharge their duties ana 1t is &c
sirable to provide for other officers
to perform such duties, the remedy is
with the people. They may amend
the constitution, or, through the pow
er delegated to the legislative assem-
bly,, provide for their removal from
office, as has bean DONE
There is only one other part OF
Supt. Watkins statement which we
care to pay any attention to, AID
that is, the following paragraph:
81. Is the bill constitutional? It
has been gone over carefully by the
Attorney Generals office and proml-
nent attorneys of the staie and is be
lieved to he constitutional ON every
point. If it is not, the pure food, OIL
inspection, hotel inspection, game
and other laws are unconstitutional
The question is adroitly asked and
answered by Mr.. Watkins himself.
1t will be noticed that he does not
say that the Attorney Generals Of
flee held this law constitutional, on
this point We inquired OF the Attor-
ney Generals office if he had filed an
opinion on this bill and was advised
by him personally that II. b. NO. II
had not been submitted to him for
his official opinion. 1t is no answer
to the statement that H. B. No. II
is unconstitutional to say, that if it
is, other laws on our statute books
are also, such as the oil inspection,
pure food, hotel Inspection, game ana
other laws. But for Mr.. Watkins in
formation we will submit that none
of these laws we're on our statute
books prior to the adoption OF our
constitution and neither were they
made a part of II constitution; but
on the contrary, the prohibition law
was created by our constitution ana
in the same document the office OF
sheriff was created; here We quote
the supreme court Of u state once
more on this point, in the case OF
Tx Parte-Corliss, referred TO above,
to demonstrate il possible to Mr..
Watkins the difference between the
enforcement of the prohibition law,
which was a part Of OUR constitution,
and the other laws enumerated,
which were not on the statute books
prior to, or made a part of our con-
stitution, quoting: Now it is quite
true that the constitution nowhere
defines what powers, rights and du-
ties shall attach or belong to the Or
flee of sheriff, hut there can be no
doubt that the trainers Of the cOnstl-
tuition had reference to the office with
those generally recognized legal du-
ties and functions belonging to it in
this country; and i'll the territory,
when the constitution was adopted"
Under article 20 of our constitution,
being the prohibition law Of our state,
found in the compiled laws Of North
Dakota for 1918, in the note, Elk Par
te-Corliss Is, N. D., is cited with the
following comment: Legislature no
power to create new offices in contra
vention of whole scheme of govern
ment as indicated by other provl-
sions.' 1t is unnecessary to take fur
ther issue with those who are person
ally interested in this bill, be they
laymen or attorneys who hold per
sOnal briefs for the law.
THE SEX OF THE INSANE.
vi approximately every five hun
dr,1 rorconc in Tho Unified Ctato. IN