Sioux County pioneer. (Fort Yates, Sioux County, N.D.) 1914-1929, 1916-04-14
Li1lde Says Opinion
Was Misconstg gzed
Attorney General Says that Twc-thi,d
Vote is Required to Mcve Co. Seat
Located by Governor

! According to the following lcttt
from Attorney General II. J. Line
] to Edwin Cooper. who prints ii
. Sioux County Leader at McLaEgl
!. lin, South Dakota, Mr.. Linae di
not give Cooper all opinion tn;
!, only majority vote is required
move the county seat of Sioux couf
! ty, but states that a two-third vot
is required to move the county sea
from Fort Yates.
The attorney general holds ths
under the supreme court decision
Fort Yates is not a temporary cour
ty seat, and agrees in every part
cular with the contention OF til
Pioneer. When Cooper asked Mr.
Linde for an opinion he did no
mention Sioux county, as evidences
by the letter below, a copy Of whicl
has reached the Pioneer in orde
that the voters of the county VIII
have been mislead by the garilet
opinion may know the true status
Bismarck, N. D., Apr. s, 1911
Mr.. Edwin Cooper,
Selfridge, n Oak.
Dear Sir:
1t has been called to MY atten
ton that thy opinion to you Of dat'
March 81, 1916, relating to the
matter Of removing OF relocating ;
county seat, has been n,isconstrued
In your request for this opinion yor
simply asked whether cr not il
would require two-tllirds vote to
remove q county seat from Il temper.
ary county scat to a permanent one
From the language used in your
letter | assumed that the case you
had in mind was where q county
seat had been located by the county
commissioners under the provisions
Of section 32OS, where territory had
been segregated from an existing
county and organized into a new
ccanty. fh such eases, under Sec
ton 3208, the county commission
ers are given the potter to tempor-
arily fix the county seat and that
such location shall remain the coun-
tv seat until the first general cleo
ton thereafter when the qualified
voters of the county are i'll power
to vote and select the permanent
county seat. At such an election
only majority vote Of the electors
is required to name the county scat.
In other words, where the county
commissioners select the temporary
county scat only a majority vote is
required 10 change Or relocate the
same.
Where, however, urorganized tcr-
ritory is organized into a county by
the proclamation Of the governor
under sections 31D1. 1892, 3193, ct
seq, and the county seat has been
located by the governor under secs
tion 1898 the location Of such a
county scat under the ruling Of our
supreme court in the case Of state,
OK rel, Ahern vs. Andcrs, reported
in Vol. 30 n. d. 5772, is q tenpor-
ary location but rather q perman-
ant one so that it's removal would
require a two-thirds vote OF the elec-
tors and such election would have
to be held ard the same would be
governed by the provisions OF SEQ
ton 1888 and q two-thirds vote re-
quircd as provided in section 1896
OF the 1918 Compiled Laws.
Accordingly, while only a major
ity vote Of the electors in the coun-
ty, is required to change the loca-
ton Of county seat from its tenn
poraty location to its permanent
onc5 yet, when county seat has
been located by tho governor liz a
case where the county is organized
cut Of an unorganized territory a
two-thirds vote is required to change
thc county scat rpon the theory that
such location is q permanent one
according to the construction OF this
statute by The supreme court in the
Dunn county case.
am sorry that my opinion has
been misunderstood and | am writ
ing you this in order that you will
understand the position OF this
office on the matter. The opinion
written YOU or March 9th correct
ly states the law or the subject but
has no application to 6 county seat
which has been located by the pro-
clamatior OF the governor.
Yours very truly,
Ii. j. Lindc,
Attorney General
xH--R a. Ck p,,,1