Grand Forks herald. [volume] (Grand Forks, N.D.) 1916-1955, 1919-05-12
UTTERLY UNFOUNDED

In Governor Fraxier's statement announcing his IN
tention to prevent the submission to the electors Of four
bills presented under the initiative clause Of the constitu-
ton. which statement is reproduced in full in the Fargo
Courder-News of Friday morning, May ., the following
language is used: al.
If I permitted this unfair initiative to be held
at the same time as the referendum the voters would
have before them at the same election two mill and
elevator bills, and two ,nome-building bills. For in
stance, the people might. not understanding the prop
osition. vote for both the legislatures and the I. ". A.
mill and elevator bill. 1t is too much to aslz and cleo
torate to- decide as complex equations 81 as would
result from the referendum and initiative being held
at the same election. These bills, both initiated and
referred, would go on the ballot by title only and it
would be impossible for voters. in the short time that
remains, to becomeso familiar with the complete text
of both referred and initiated bills that they can cast
an intelligent ballot by voting in each case for one of
the bills and against the other, the titles of both as
they would appear on the ballot being so nearly
alike"
These statements. either Intentionally or ignorantly.
are directly contrary to the facts. If the entire eleven
bills for which petitions have been circulated were voted
on at the same election as proposed there would not be on
the ballot two mill and elevator bills. and there would not
be on the ballot two home building bills. No referendum
is called for on either the mill and elevator bill or the
home building bill passed by the last legislature. A new
mill and elevator bill is proposed under the initiative, and
in the same manner a new home building bill is proposed.
One vote On each subject. and not two as stated by the
governor, is required to dispose Of the whole matter. The
voters therefore can not be confused as between the two
bills, nor can they vote for both old and new bills because
only one bill on each subject is submitted. The situation
simply is that there is proposed under the initiative
a mill and elevator bill differing in certain Of its provis-
ions from the one already passed and intended to be a
uhotif,,+ ~ IL II tho ~, a.-;.o +h;. h.+;+,&; -
be made all they need do and ali they can do is to vote
bill and prefer it to the new measure all they need do and
all they can do is to vote against the new measure. This
applies equally to the home building bill.
If the unwarranted and highhanded action which the
governor declares he will take is carried out the voters
will be deprived Of an opportunity to pass upon the leg
cause that bill is not brought before the people under the
ferendum. This is true of the home building bill. The
people therefore are required to swallow what has been
prepared for them without even an opportunity TO say
whether or not they like it.
The governors statement that the petitioners who re-
is impudent and insulting. Aside from this the case of
good faith may be a matter of opinion. A demonstration
one way or the other is scarcely possible in the very ma
ture of the case, but in the particular instance of the state
ments made by the governor and just quoted, the case is
one of fact and not of opinion. . The governor has misrep.
resented the facts. He has stated publicly that certain
!, things are true which as a matter of public record are
false.