Grand Forks herald. [volume] (Grand Forks, N.D.) 1916-1955, 1919-06-16
THE FEDERAL TEST
me federal di:

THE FEDERAL TEST
The federal district>court for North Dakota, through
Judge Amidon, presiding Judge, has dismissed the suit
brought by certain taxpayers of the state to restrain the
state government and it's officials from carrying into eff
feet legislation enacted 1t the last session of the legis-
lature for the establishment and operation by the state
government of certain business utilities. The dismissal
is based on the ground that the legislation to which OBJ
lection is made does not constitute a violation of the
constitution of the United States as charged in the COM
plant.
That there should be a popular tendency to confuse
questions of legality with question of sound judgment
Is natural and perhaps inevitable. The existence Of this
tendency is not new, and nearly two thousand years ago
the apostle Paul thought it proper to remind those to
whom he wrote that it is the part of good Judgment to
abstain from doing many things permitted by the law
All things are lawful he wrote, but all things are. not
expedient" The point had been obscured in the dis
cussion of purely legal phases of the issues involved.
The compliments in this case maintained that by
the operation of the legislation in question their interests
would be injuriously affected, in direct violation of the
rights which are guaranteed to every citizen by the con
stitution OF the United States. The complainants were
represented by able counsel. The defendants also had
legal assistance of unquestioned ability, including the
attorney general of the state and assistants specially de-
tailed to this work, and special counsel employed by the
governor and certain of his immediate associates.
The Herald is not informed as to what, if any,
further legal steps are to be taken lin this case, but it
deems it proper.at this time to cali attention to certain
facts. -.., tE8E
First, assuming the present decision to be final, it
which may later be submitted to the state courts. It is
decided that the legislation in question does not violate
the federal constitution. The constitution of the United
States does not prohibit a state from proceeding as it
has been proposed to proceed in this case. If the people
of a state wish to build for themselves a terminal ele-
vator. for instance, the constitution of the United States
does not prohibit them from doing so. So it is with the
other legislation complained of. Further questions Of
legality must be for the state courts, and not those of
the nation.
Second, the decision has no bearing on the wisdom
folly and yeti be perfectly legal. The question there is
one of judgment and not of law. The arguments which
have been advanced against the business wisdom and
political policy of the socialistic legislation which our
assembly mas enacted, and which is now before the people
for their final verdict, ts not affected in any way -by this
decision. If it is unsafe and unwise to place unlimited
power in the hands of the governor through an indus
trial commission Of which he is the dictator, to estab-.
fish a monopoly of publicity for political purposesl or to
merge control of criminals and the insane with the edu-
cation of normal children in the hands of a single board,
that fact is not changed by the legality of such acts
under the federal constitution. e r
Third, there is no connection between this suit and
the submission of the seven bills under the referendum
law. The complainants in the legal action are citizens
OF the state and of the United States. They have exer-
cised the right possessed by all individuals to appeal tb
the courts for Interpretation of laws affecting them ara
for the protection of their legitimate interests. Some
possibly all-of the compliments have signed petitions
calling for the referendum on these bills. Again, they
uoro vof~fefHN hat -Si~1,,&. :, -l-AA
and are not to be criticized for SO doing. But their
action was personal individual, and entirely distinct
from the general movement for the reference of the
bills. nrI - az
Lastly, the seven bills are before the people. not
on the basis Of their legality. but on that OF their sound
policy, a matter with which the courts have no concern.
The court decision removed from the situation one seie-
ment of uncertainty. The federal courts. if this decision
remains permanent, will not interfere with the oper-
alton of these laws IL they go into effect Concerning
most of the matters involved there is a pretty clear
understanding as to what will be the attitude Of the
state supreme court should appeal be made to it. The
court is on record in a sufficient number Of cases to
warrant the assurance that North Dakota decisions
would sustain all Of these bills. There is, therefore.
placed upon the voter who goes to the polls on on June
- the weighty responsibility Of the knowledge that
except In some rare cases. the votes cast by himself and
his fellow scitizensaat this time are final No man can
60 to the polls and cast his vote neEligently or Thoughts.
iessly, excusins himself on the gruond that dangerous
and objectionable stprovisionse in the laws wifi be. feltmi-
natsds ~ the courts The courts havs already spoken
anA.r tc az antsnss and purposes, havs washed their hands
sfsths4awhcis matter It remains for the peopls them
selves sto taks action which will BE DEFINITE ana hnal,
md ne voter voter e North Dakota can escape hts. share o.
A~AnMA #ss@