Grand Forks herald. [volume] (Grand Forks, N.D.) 1916-1955, 1919-01-15
JURISDICTION
!, AND MERITS OF
{ CASE DISCUSSED
s,r --
81.
Detailed Report of consid-
eration of Five C%onstitu-
tional Amendments.
LANCER
s.APPEARS FOR STATE
Stutsrnan Contends Canvas
sing Board Made Decision
Contrary to Law.
(RE Bismarck Bureau of Grand Forks
sSsi Her8ld.1

Bismarck, N. D.. Jan. 15.-The su-
preme court yesterday morning, in
taking under advisement the case of
the. state Of North Dakota ex rel. w.
gE.4Byerly and Theodore G.. Nelson,
VS.. the state board Of c~anvassers, test
ing the validity Of the action Of the
Q OF ~canvassers in certifying all
the constitutional amendments as
adopted, did not rule separately upon
the motion to quash the proceedings
on h ground hat it was a legisla-
tive matter rather, than judicial. Ar
guments upon the jurisdiction of the
court were presented by counsel for
both sides, but the court declined to
rule separately. This will be consid-
cred with the original issue: the Nes-
ton Of whether the state c%anvassing
board proceeded properly in declar-
ing passed five Of the seven amend
ments initiated by the Nonpartisan
league at h recent general election,
and which ecured only a majority
OF the votes cast upon the several
questions and not a majority of all
the votes cast at the general election.
Attorney General LANCER, appear
ing for the respondents. presented
two briefs, one upon the jurisdiction
land the other upon the merits. The
five amendments involved are:
n Emergency measures: constitution
al amendments: taxation: debt limit,
and public ownership Of industries.
Each received a majority of all the
votes cast upon that respective SUBJ
.ject matter with which each amend
ment had to DEAL" says the brief.
LANCER Presents Three Propositions.
The attorney generals brief sets
forth the motion to quash and the
objection to the jurisdiction of the
court, and further that sit is the
contention Of the state board of can
vassers that this court has = " >
any right to say n way or another
whether the cause therein stated has
any merit or not"
attorney general presented three
propositions: First. that .the appli-
cants upon allegations contained in
the AFFIDAVIT for writ Of certiorari
does not establish a proper interest
to grant the right with respect to
the subject involved to bring this
proceeding; second, that the question
presented by the application Of the
applicants herein is a moot question
and one ~prematurely raised at this
time: third, that a proceeding to
amend the constitution. in which
both the legislature and the electors
Of this state participate, Is a legisla-
tive proceeding with which the judic-
Siary have no jurisdiction to interfere
during. the course of such proceed
ing"
The brief questions the right Of the
ssrelators to ask the court to set aside
1.-THE action Of the c%anvassing board.
1T sets forth that their personal or
property rights have not been in
gfrtnged upon. because 'the initiated
amendments have not yet ripened in
ITO law" and that. because their rights
8have not been invaded. there is nc
fundamental right upon the part OF
these REALTORS to hinder in any way
the progress Of proposed legislation
ct Is further urged" says the brief,
s"sthat nc such right to interfere with
Slegislation or with the proceedings OF
the legislature during the course of
such proceedings has rel yet been
spermitted or should now be permit
tied to .apply to proposed legislative
senactments initiated by initiative pc
IN 80 A.H -.