Grand Forks herald. [volume] (Grand Forks, N.D.) 1916-1955, 1919-04-04
THE FEDERAL COURT SUIT

In the case which is being brought in the federal
courts by citizens Of North Dakota who test the right OF
the state government to proceed with the industrial and
other plans inaugurated at the late session of the legisla-
ture, there are presented a number of points which it is
to the interest of all persons concerned to have definite
ly and authoritatively settled.
Some of these points, whatever may be their rela-
ton to the federal constitution and the statutes, are also
within the jurisdiction of the state courts. Among hese
may be mentioned the adoption of the amendments
upon which this new legislation is based. the question: OF
sinking fund. and the question of delegation OF power.
The complaint alleges that the amendment in ques-
ton was not legally submitted to the people. If the de-
cision on this point rests on the state courts we know
what that decision would be, because we have on file q
recent decision covering that very point and holding that
the submission of the amendment was legal and in proper
form.
The state constitution requires that when bonds ct
the state of North Dakota or any of its subdivisions are
issued there shall at the same time be :evied a tax con-
tlnuing from year to year sufficient to pay the interest
on the obligation and to retire them at maturity. Bonds
have frequently been declared illegal because OF failure
to comply with this provision. The bills authorizingHthe
new enterprises certainly do not comply with this pro-
vision in exact form. We have no means of knowing
whether or not the state courts would hold that there has
been compliance in substance.
The question of the delegation of power has been
raised IN NORM dakota on some occasions, notably the
capitol commission case, and in the Grand Forks Park
board case, in each of which commissions were held to
be illegal because of an attempted delegation of power.
In all Of the cases above mentioned the state courts
have certain jurisdiction. The relation of the cases to
Federal laws is quite different of course, and t is to be
supposed that the attorneys who have formulated this
complaint are convinced that the federal courts in diff
ferent manners and for different purposes have juris-
diction. ,f
The larger case, a4d it is one Of absorbing interest,
relates to the manner and the degree m which a sta tt
Of the American Union can engage in ordinary CONNER
cal business. States and municipalities do carry on bus
mess enterprises, and they have the support Of numerous
federal decisions in doing so. but in most cases, and in
all of them so far as we know, these affirmative decis-
ions are based on the needs of the state for the preser-
walton Of the health or the peace OF its citizens, or for
rthe performance Of some work in which the vital Interests
Of all the people are Immediately involved. The powers
which have been thus asserted are usually described as
the police powers of the state, but as North Dakota is the
first state to attempt to enter into a general commercial
business frankly and avowedly for business reasons and
not in any sense or under any guise for the maintenance
Of the health of its citizens or the preservation OF their
peace and safety, the federal courts will be called upon
TO decide conclusively whether or not under the Ameri-
can constitution a state can add to its ordinary govern
mental functions the function Of a business corporation
to be operated for the purposes only for which business
corporations are usually operated.
1t is important for the interests Of everyone that the
facts in this case shall be definitely established so that
our people will know on what basis they stand. that If the
proposed action Of the state is lawful appropriate steps
may be taken to complete it. without legal interference,
and II II is unlawful that futile efforts to conduct con-
tinue It may be abandoned unless the people OF the ma
ton should determine to change their constitution inso-
far as It governs this feature.