Grand Forks herald. [volume] (Grand Forks, N.D.) 1916-1955, 1919-01-14
ON +,
AMENDMENTS
BEF0REC0URI
LANCER and stutsman Ap'
pear to Press Cases to
Supreme Body.
(By staff Correspondent,

Bismarck, Jan. 1.-THE arguments
in the case involving the validity of
the action of the state can~sing
board in declaring the constitutional
amendments adopted, despite the fact
that Ave did not have a majority of
all the votes cast, were heard by the
supreme court this morning. The case
was that of the state of North Dakota
upon relation of W. e. Byerly and
Theo. Nelson VS.. state board of can
vassers and was upon an application
for writ of, certiorari. Attorney Gener-
al LANCER, appearing for respondents,
commended that it was purely a ques-
ton for the legislature and that,
therefore court had no jurisdiction.
w. H. Stutsman, Of Mandan, appear
ing for REALTORS, declared that it was
absolutely g. question for the. courts
.teedeterEnine. andsHe argued: thfsspofnt
at some length. LANCER; did not 60
into. the question Of, Jurisdiction to any
length declaring that it was covered
fully in his brief.
In the opening arguments, LANCER
%contended that the question of adopt
ing constitutional amendments was q
legislative matter from beginning to
end and that the courts were given
no authority to intervene. He said the
point was covered in his brief and he
would not argue it longer.
JuSlACo TtOp4uSOH interrupted the
attorney general declaring hat that
was the most important question to
determine. The first thing to decide.
he said, was the question Of jurisdic-
ton and that the only question in HE
mind was whether or not the action
Of the legislature was final.
LANCER did not. continue the argu-
ment, on this point. Mr.. Stutsman de-
voted considerable time to a discus
/ sion of the Jurisdiction of the ques-
ton. His contention was that from
beginning to end the question was for
the court to decide. State government,
he declared, is divided into three dis
tinct parts: Legislative, executive and
judicial. The legislature is given pow
err only to enact and repeal laws, and
whenever it proposes to amend, the
constitution it is acting under special
authority given by the constitution
and that therefore when it is proposed
to amend the constitution or ratify
amendments, it is purely performing
ministerial duties, which are subject
ITO the review Of the courts. The con-
stitution >confers upon the courts all
judicial authority to construe and in
in this case it has absolute authority
to review the records in this case.
In his brief setting forth this con-
tention that the court has no .juris-
diction. Attorney General LANCER said
in support Of this contention. eve
desire to present to this honorable
body these several propositions deal
ing with the right Of the petitioners
to- maintain this proceeding and
which go to- the question Of the jurts-
dfction of this court with reference
to such proceeding instituted by the
petitioners. l 80
1t is our contention, first, that the
applicants upon allegations, contained
in the affidavit for writ of certiorari
does not establish a proper interest. to
grant the right withs respect to- the
subject involved to bring this pro-
ceeding: second, that the question
presented by the application Of the
applicants herein isAa moot question
and n p~rematurely released. at this
time; and third, that a proceeding t.
amend the constitution in which both
the legislature and the electors Of this
state participate is q Legislative pro.
ceedi1g with which the judiciary have
no Jurisdiction to interfere during the
course Of such proceedings"