The Fargo forum and daily republican. [volume] (Fargo, N.D.) 1894-1957, 1917-04-21
SATURDAY EVENING LETTER

We are still for the Red, White anc
Blue.
And we are for the gallant soldiers too
And for paying them fifty month.
It seems the question is big enough
for Governor Frazier and President
Townley land We beg them to give it a
| boost
There is large and hungry office,
seeking class who want the job Of
drafting men, but the talk of drafting
Is without sense or reason until the
government offers to pay men a rea-
sonable compensation. In these times
an offer of fifteen month is a mere
| insult. A mans time is his private
property, and under the constitution
private property may not be taken fol
public use without just compensation
1t Is a disgrace and a public scandal
for our great and rich government to
beg or force men to give their time
and to incur the risks and hardships
Of soldiers life for less than fifty a
month.
Here is copy Of another dissenting
opinion:
5Iumardt va. Mcdonald.
Robinson, ]. (dissenting): In this
case it is extremely difficult to write
dissent without using some swear
words. The majority opinion does
violence to the fundamental principles
Of constitutional law for the protection
Of private rights and property. 1t
holds, In effect, that a justice OF the
peace may be given unlimited power
for the destruction of private proper
ty, however valuable it may be, and
that the owner of the property has no
redress only by way of an appeal
from the decree of the justice. And yet
the statute does not provide for any
appeal or any means Of staying the
destruction pending an appeal. And
how was anyone to know that this
court or a justice of the peace would
allow an appeal when it was not al
lowed by statute, and when nearly all
court rulings are to the contrary?
The case comes to this court on an
appeal from an order overriding a
demurrer to the complaint. 1t does
not properly involve any question con-
corning the rights or jurisdiction Of a
Justice Of the peace to order the de-
struction of property. The complaint
AYERS that the plaintiffs own the wine
In question and taht the defendant
wrongfully withholds it and threatens
action. Hence, the demurrer is no
good. If it be true that a justice Of the
peace may obtain Jurisdiction to order
the destruction of property, the plead
ings do not show any jurisdiction. And
it Is not for the plaintiff to plead any
such jurisdiction: 1t was for the sheriff
to plead and prove a record justifying
his holding Of the property. It was for
him to show that a judgment for the
destruction was duly rendered by a
court having competent jurisdiction.
The jurisdiction of q Justice of the
peace is never presumed. While the
decision here does unjustly sustain
the demurrer to the complaint and
remands the case for further proceed
ings, it does not preclude an amend
ment of the complaint nor jury trial.
1t is not so frightful as the former
decision, ordering the destruction Of
the property without any evidence
whatever and on a mere demurrer to
a complaint which shows that the
property was legally imported.
There are three similar suits in
which ninety-five parties claim nine
ty-five barrels of wine, one barrel for
each person, as a good winter supply.
1t is thirteen months since the appeal
was fled in this court. Three months
ago, when it was argued and submit
ted on q rehearing by direction of the
chief justice, / promptly wrote my
decision and gave 1t to the judges and
the press. Now, after three months OF
incubation, the other judges sign up
to contrary decision. Without ex-
aiming the record or saying a word
on the subject, the judges assume that
the justice of the peace had Jurtsdic-
ton of the parties and the property,
but that is a wild assumption. Then
they proceed to hold that the prohi-
bttion statute gave a justice ample
jurisdiction to order a destruction Of
the property, regardless OF its value.
That Is awful!
Under the constitution justices OF
the peace have jurisdiction In civil
actions when the amount in contro-
versy, exclusive of costs, does not ex-
coed 5000, and they have such juris-
diction as may be provided by law to
determine cases of misdemeanors. 1t is
conceded that IL the proceedings be-
fore the justice were a civil action,
or criminal action, then the justice
would have had no jurisdiction, because
in those actions his jurisdiction is ex-
pressly limited by the statute. But as.
the proceeding is not denominated as
an action, the judges hold there Is no
limit to the Jurisdiction of the justice
Thus it seems that by the mere use
of words the legislature may evade
and throw aside the limitations Of the
constitution as by calling crime a
contempt.
An action is an ordinary proceeding
in a court of justice by which one
party prosecutes another party for the
or protection Of a right,
or the redress of prevention of a
- zs4sf.4ts~