Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1916-07-27
TAX COMMISSION
TOO EXTRAvACANT
COURT |NT|MA7ES
Ruling of Supreme Law Body
Leaves Board Without Money
to Pay Clerks.
"0NE MAN DOESN'T NEED
LESS HELP THAN THREE"
Judges Do Not Give Decision on
Constitutionality of Gre
ating Act.

The tax commissions contention
that it was entitled to $16,SOO for
clerk hire instead of $4,000 was over
ruled yesterday in an opinion handed
down by the supreme court. 1t was
written by Judge Goss.
Wide interest had been aroused in
the case because of the possibility of
the court ruling on the constitutional
ity of the act creating the tax com.
mission, decision which would have
effected the board of regents and the
immigration commission, and might
have compelled the calling of an ex-
ira session Of the legislature. But
the court found that without taking
into consideration this question the
commission was not entitled to the
extra sum.
Wallace for Commission.
George E. Wallace of the tax com.
mission argued the case for the COM
mission and Attorney General Linde
for Carl Jorgenson, state auditor. 1t
was in the form of a writ of mandam.
us compelling the auditor to substi.
tute the money appropriated in the
act of 1911, creating the commission,
for the amount appropriated by the
1915 legislature for clerk hire.
The legislature of 1915, while in.
tending to pass a bill reducing the
membership of the tax commission
from three to one, passed an appro.
priations measure that carried $4,000
a year for one commissioner, $2,4OO
q year for secretary and $4,000 for
clerk hire. But the bill for one.man
commission did not pass. ] =,
Allow Three Commissioners. Y
The commission then brought ac-
tion to have the original appropria-
tioh made in the act of 1911 provid.
ing $3,000a year each for three com.
missioners substituted for the 1915
appropriation. The supreme court up.
held this contention. .'..... 49,,
In this case the tax commission
asked to have the appropriation made
for!lclefk hire in the act of 1911 sub.
stituted for the budget of 1915, CIV
ing them $16,SO0 for the biennial per.
iod instead of $4,000.
mo Need for More Help"
The supreme court ruled that there
was no reason why three-man COM
mission should require more clerk
hire than a one-man commission and
that the legislature had made the ap-
preparations for clerk hire in 1915 on
the recommendation of the three.man
commission.
"The legislature" says the opinion,
lin nine instances, including the pro-
vision for salary of the secretary of
the board, in making the appropria-
tion granted to the dollar the request
of the present three-man commission
and in only two items out of the elev-
en- was any change made from what
was requested, and these in the items
Of furniture and fixtures and travel
ing expenses. For the former the ap-
preparation of $500 was made in lieu
of $1,000, requested"
Got What They Requested.
"When the fact is considered that
the commission was organized, estab
lished and had been doing business
for years, it would seem that the leg
islature might properly deem it part
of wisdom to grant $500, for such
a purpose instead of $1,000, as asked
And the same is true as to the $4,000
item requested for travelling expense,
for which $2,220 was appropriated in
Subdivision IS. From the fact that
this item appropriated is not round
sum, as $4,000 or $2,500, it would not
(be speculation to assume that some
calculation was made and care used
in arriving at the certain sum of
1920 appropriated. The total re-
quest was for but $2,320 more than
was granted for the biennial period.
There was allowed this commission
within $1,160 per year of all it re-
quested. Few departments of state
were treated as we'll by the legisla-
ture. Over $1,000 was cut from ap-
porpriations desired for the use of
this court and the state law library.
Under these circumstances and actu-
ating facts should any court hold that
these eleven items of Subdivision 18
were inadvertently passed as an ap-
preparation for such expenses of
commission other than this tax COM
mission? And this too when the
amounts in nine out of eleven of said
items are exactly what was requested
by the present commission? Mani
festly not? The contrary is conclus-
lively demonstrated to be the fact, al
most beyond a reasonable doubt"
Former Case Different.
The court held that the case re-
garding the salary of the two CON-
missiOners was different in that this
(COntinued on Page TWO)