The Bismarck tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, N.D.) 1916-current, 1918-10-12
DIVET TELLS.
OF ATTACK ON
SCHOOL FUND
Veteran Legislator Describes
League Plans to Invest
Trust Heritage:
:. L. r,ss.-
Y SAFEGUARDS REMOVED
"
SAFEGUARDS REMOVED
Townley Would Tear From Con-
stitution Everything That
Hampers Him. W

stitution Everything That
Hampers Him.
Devils Lake. n D., Oct. PA G..
Divet. in conference with Doyle for
Governor workers held in Devils Lake
last night, laid before them the story
of the attempt Of the Socialists to op-
en- the way to get at the North Da-
kota state school fund. ...y
Mr.. ,Divet dealt with II. B. a. at
some length. and then discussed the
school fund amendment to the consti'
| tuition. E,A' r' ID"
Mr.. Divet said: - 80, ~
| WIZ Danger to School Fund.
| The next thing that attracted the
attention of the thoughtful in connec.
| ton with this remarkable proposition
was it's effect upon the state school
fund, In that fund is untold wealth
preserved tor the education of the
children of the future. Once it was
admitted that the proposition was to
permit debts without limit to the dan
ger of the property of the state al
eyes turned to this sacred fund and
the leaves of the bill were thumbed
with anxiety to ascertain how il at all
it was affected
Section 1853 of the present constitu-
ton provides that the moneys Of the
| permanent school funds shall be In
vested in bonds of school districts and
other municipalities, on mortgages,
bonds of other states and bonds OF
the United States, and Of the state OF
North Lakota. .
|, Exclude U. S. Bonds.
By Section 1853 OF the proposed new
constitution it was provided that such
funds could only be invested in bonds
of school districts. or the state OF
North Dakota or in mortgages. Bonds
Of states and of the unlted States
were excluded. Why the exclusion OF
bonds OF the United STATES from the
ield OF investment OF our school fund
GrOm what district OF the state came
the mandate TO the legislature to
change the constitution in that state
1t will be remembered this was only
TWO months before the country be-
came involved IN the world war;, a
time when We were trembling on the
Drink of wal, a time when every
tnoughtIui man expected from day to
uay that the country would be pushed
over the brink into the struggle. why
/ This particular time for eliminating
United States bonds? 1t occurred to
the thoughtful that one reason for
such limitation of the field was that
there would be more money available
tor investment in such bonds as the
state might issue as guarantee under
the provisions of Sec. -. 1t occurred
to us that, bonds Unfortunately IT,
sued under the wide open policy OF
that section must be at best precar
fious security and that if the safety
iof the fund was to be controlling
consideration United States bonds
should be resorted to. and that the
! fund ought not to be allowed to be In
vested at all in such precarious Sc
curities as it was contemplating auth
orizing. 1t occurred to us also that
the United States vas soon gong 10
be in the market for money on bonds
and that it was a poor time In the
interests of the country to discrimln.
ate against it's securities. If the Dill
had passed and been ratified by the
people it would have been Impossible
to have invested a dollar of the fund
in Liberty bonds, though large
amount has at last been so invested IN
response to an urgent public opin.
ion. ...,
Defend all Safeguards. r..
For the purpose of safeguarding
the fund an amendment was sought to
be made to the bill which amendment
was as follows: i.
Mr.. Chairman. move as an
amendment to Section l53 of House
Bill "A, as printed, the following, IN
sert at, the end of said section, 'prov1d-
ed, however, none Of the school funds
shall be invested in bonds issued or
guaranteed by the state Of North Da-
kota or any political subdivision there
of under the provisions of Section l73,
in excess of the debt limit specified in
Sections 10. III and 172.
THE amendment was voted down
by the regular party vote.
1.-THE danger sought to be guarded
against was emphasized by another
provision of the old constitution which
was omitted entirely from the new.
Sec. 165 provides The legislative as
sembly shall pass suitable laws TOT
the safe keeping, transfer and dis
bursement of the state school funds;
AND SHALL REQUIRE ALL OFF,
GALS CHARGED WITH THE SAME
or the safe keeping thereof to give
ample bond for all moneys and funds
received by them and if any OF said
officers shall convert to his own use
in any manner or form . = . or allow
any of the same to remain In his
hands uninvested except in the man
ner prescribed by law, every such act
shall constitute an embezzlement, and
shall be felony Now what is the
matter with this provision? Why
should not man charged with the
care and investment Of the school fund
be- required to give a bond for the
proper investment of it the same as
county treasurer of a bank cashier?
There is only one answer possible, ne
should. Why should not man charg-
ed with caring for the fund be guilty
OF embezzlement ii he converts 1t to
his own use, and be sent to the peni-
Tertiary the same as a man who en-
,5ezzles any, other funds coming into
his hands by way of trust? There Is
only one answer. possible. He should.
Yet this instrument We were asked to
adopt as a constitution of the state
over night omits entirely that provis-
ion. Wipes it out entirely. Who among