Jamestown weekly alert. [volume] (Jamestown, Stutsman County, D.T. [N.D.]) 1882-1925, 1916-04-13
SECOND ATTACK
ON BONDING Law
Comparison Of Bond Companies
and States Rates.

Following on the heels of the an
that the state officials
would put into operation the state
bonding act, comes another announce
ment that the enforcement of the act
has been suspended by order of the
United States supreme court pending
a legal hearing of the validity of the
law in that court. The delays in
hearing cases in the United States su-
preme court are such that it will
probably some time before the case
is decided. The law has been held
up through the action of private
bonding companies, and this is the
second time that the will of the peo-
pie of North Dakota has been attack
ed and defeated by these same COM
panies.
The law passed by the last legis-
lature provided for the establishment
of state bonding department to save
the heavy cost of official bonds for
county, city, town, village, school dis
trict and township officers. The su-
preme court of this state sustained
the action of the legislature and the
insurance commissioner had made
preparations to put the act into ef-
feet.
The state bonding law provided for
a fund to pay the premiums on bonds
for officials of various kinds as above
noted. 1t did not compel such Off
cials to utilize the state bonding de-
partment; they still had the right to
secure surety and individual bonds.
But the state law reduced the cost to
taxpayers compelled to furnish official
bonds. Under the bonding act the
premiums on such bonds were fixed
at rs cents per 500 per year, to be
paid by the authorities of each coun-
ty, city, village, school district and
township to the state treasurer; the
minimum of all small bonds and
short-term bonds to be not less than
$3.50. The bonds were to be issued
by the insurance commissioner in an
amount for one official not greater
than $4,000 and over that amount a
surety bond or personal bond must be
secured to be paid for by the county
as in .the case of the treasurer. Due
restrictions regarding the indemnity
for losses were included in the bond
ing act. If the law could have been
put into effect it would have saved a
great deal Of money in premiums to
the taxpayers in cases that require
the counties to furnish bonds for GER
tain officials. There are hundreds of
officials of all kinds in the state who
are, under the law, compelled to fur
nish bonds.
Difference in Rates.
An example Of the difference in the
cost under the state law that has been
held up and the cost charged by pri-
vate bonding companies is readily
seen. In the case of Stutsman, as
we'll as other counties, the commits
sioners are required to furnish the
bonds for the treasurer, county judge,
states attorney, commissioners them
selves, auditor, register. sheriff.
clerk of court and other officers.
Taken on the basis of the amount
asked by the bonding companies and
the amount which the bonds could
have been procured for under the
state law, Stutsman county will lose
about $500 in the premium which it
will be required to pay for bonds of
county officials over the rate provided
for by the state law. Every school
district and township treasurer are
also required to furnish bonds to be
paid for out of the township and
school treasures
The present county :reasnrer's
bond of 100000 cost Stutsman
county $40 for two years in bond
ing company. Under the state law
the first $4,000 of the bond would
only cost $125; the second $4,000,
to be negotiated with some surety
company and paid for by the county.
The state law rate would make a
substantial saving. Under the state
rate the sherih's bond Of $4,000
would be $3.50. The actual cost
paid the bonding company was $135.
The Justice Of the peace bond, in the
sum of $500, under the bonding COM
pany charge, is $3.50; under the
state law for two years it would be
$3.50. The rates vary according to
the Official to be bonded. The bond
ing company'c charge is about twice
that Of the rate fixed by the state
law in many cases.
0%u$uvno~ nn,~$~, ho. n~lo>rn~aA