The Devils Lake world and inter-ocean. (Devils Lake, N.D.) 1915-1920, 1917-03-08
N [! Z : ! \ g !! RE NJ |! ! ! ! 4. n
BEHIND hin HOUSE,: !.
\ Bill No No, "A?

E A!l0S kA0 YAS6dSS O4fI11060 Dill NO.
u, would have opened the way for
townships, counties, OF cities of North
Dakota to have entered the liquor
business had they so desired Is shown
~ Henry puanbeck % Melville, back
ca BY: the legal opinions 81 Sveinbjom
Johnson and @. B. Burtnes,s 81 this
city, according to an article appearing
II the current issue ,ofs the the Nor
manden.
AS Mr.. 5Quanbeck, was formerly a
league candidate for the legislature
although knitted by other leagutesrrs
when they found he would not sup
port the more radical part of their
program, and as Mr.. Johnson, has also
70 9 considerable extent been in sym
,pathy with the aims Of the organiza-
ton their views are Of especial inter-
est.
Mr.. Johnson's opinion follows:
Editor Normanden: Replying to
your inquiry. Of recent date. with 9
ference TO the effect Of house bill No.
"A, the proposed new constitution for
North Dakota, upon the liquor ques-
ton in this state, ! beg 70 submit the
following; Il, !
Section "A Of the Bill reads as fol-.
lows: sThe right of the state, pr any
political purposes shall not be denied,
or prohibited.nn
You will observe that this section
permits the stasa OF any political sub
division thereof to engage In ANY
BUSINESS, and was intended to per-
mitSthe erection Of state packing
plants, flour mills, terminal elevators,
and other enterprises scss.,almi,only, and
under our present systemic ~ industry,
believed to belong in the field. 81 pri-
vate initiative. The sections most
sweeping and contains no exceptions,
reservations or limitations. It per-
naitse state socialism, In whole or in
part. In SAYING that this section per-
rnits state socialism, I am, Of course,
expressing no. opiniontonth the merits OF
socialism. I am merely stating q
conclusion Of fact, or 10 legal conclu-
sion, at nest
The section in the new bill that ex-
pressly desls with the liquor question
is 203. Il IL a correct and verbatirn
copy Of the ,prphibitery clause infthe
present constitution. The following
$ the material partition a. thessction:
NO perspn. association Or corpora.
ton shay :yvisAinst As state man1fae:
ture feFssals srsift anYsintosisssins
Liquors. and No peFson, assosiehonl III
Corporation. shall iiHpertgan .efs the
sam. same as sift, barter ltta o. trade ASA
beverage" I. ), !
Section "A. gives The state. county,
cityi or tpwnshiptt the, right to engages
in business in the, broadest terms.
May any Of these units or the state
engage in the business manpfaetur..
inc, Of selling Intoxicating liquors!
The The answer to that question in. q large
measure lnga.uspre deeppentlsr upon the answer Il
The; fol following question:
EIs the state "a city, county or q
township. a ".person, association o,
corporation" within the meaning Of
section, 203?
Il the above question must be an.
swered in theinegadye thenit follow.
that the prohibition does NOT apply
to the state orany Of its politica
subdivisions, Andsthe new constitution
would permit these political units /,
engage in the liquor, business in ih,
manner with otherebusiness.
It vii mot be seriously contende,
that the word Hpersonss, and "associa
ton" refer to Or embrace the stat
or q public or municipal corporate,
) in the provision referred to. But
more serious question arises with til
: reference to the word, Corporation
Does that include the state or any Q
its political subdivisions? It seems t
| have been uniformly held that the us
: of the term Corporation" in connec
ton or in juxtaposition with til
phrase association or individual" ey
; inces an intention to limit the appli
cation of the term to private corpora
lions. The supreme court Of Louis
; lana in State vi. Cafery % So. Is
held that the word Corporation" /
], the phrase Corporation, association o
; individual" in the state constitution
! embraced private, not public or mum
cipal corporation. The same conclu
sion was reached in the following
cases:
Sherman county VS.. simmonds 10
u. s. 70.
Land Owners ' People 113 Ill
296.
: State VS.. District 16 AtL 9O1,
6 Linehan We. City 100 Mass. 212.
Tn Ro. C;tu ~ Ryn- Vel. AZ AT Y