The Bottineau courant. (Bottineau, Bottineau County, N.D.) 1895-1929, 1920-04-29

ls sWx1CA I0S pGOpL6 O1 LuS St6VG nave US-
cided upon was made in the Supreme
Court last week. The so-called "42
taxpayers lost their case in the
United States District Court presided
over by Judge Amidon. To postpone
the Inauguration Of the industrial pro-
gram Of the state government as long
as possible. they carried their suit to
Washington.
The best that the corporations doing
business in North Dakota could mus
ter in the way of legal talent was on
Hind to show the court why the state
should not be allowed to sell bonds
for the industries. It cannot be said
that the attorneys Of Big Business did
themselves credit in their handling Of
the case. N. c., Young, attorney for
the N. P. R. R., was "bawled out" by
Chief Justice White for his failure to
state the point at issue in the case and
his persistence in talking about ire
levant matters. Tracy Bangs was
caught in a contradiction by the Chief
Justice when he tried to explain how
the cost of the industries was to be
met. His endeavor to explain away
the parallel case in which the city of
Portland, Maine, was held by the
Court to have the right to sell fuel
to citizens met with sharp reproof by
Justice Pitney. G. ]. Murphy, the /.
V A. lawyer from Grand Forks as
sured the crurt that the evil condi-
tions against which the farmers of
North Dakota have struggled for more
than generation and to meet which
they have inaugurated the industrial!
program. are purely Imaginary"
Counsel for Attorney General Ian
ger had agreed with Attorneys Will
liam Lemke and Frederic Pike who
represented the industrial commission
to divide evenly with them the two
hours allotted to the state to defend
the industrial program. Langer's law
yers blandly took 95 minutes of this
time to damn the program with their
feeble arguments in it's behalf. Mr..
Pike then had only 25 minutes to COW
er the entire case. His contention was
that the federal courts have no iuris-
diction in the case since the whole
governmental power resides in the
people of the several states except as
it is limited by grants Of power in
the constitution as interpreted in the
courts. He argued that there is moth
ing in the federal constitution to in
dicate any grant of authority to fed
eral courts to determine whether or
not the recric ct North Dakota have
the right to tax themselves to estab-
lish state enterprises. The people OF
the state hsve clearly indicated their
wish to inaugurate such program,
he said.
In the brief of Attorneys Lenke
and Pike the real motive Of the suit
is revealed. "The true interest of the
appellants in this controversy is po-
litical, not justiciable. In the COM
plant they allege that the. North Da-
kota prc. iran. VI :slates the guaranty
os repdbilc:-n government. In their
brief, they make the same contention,
as one of three claims under the Fed
eral Constitution. As we have re-
marked before, the real issue amounts
to this: The appellants do not approve
the constitution ard laws Of North
Dakota and therefore those enact
nnents should be void. The laws are
bad laws, they say, and because the
laws are bad. they express q purpose
that ought not to be public purpose,
and their operation is not due process
Of law, and they are unconstitutional,
This grievance frequently recurs IN
the brief: it may be called the domin-
4 ant note. Instead cf according the
h United States Court in North Dakota
! and the Supreme Court in that state,
the regard due such forums, we are
Il asked to receive their views subject
\ to the intimation that they are colored
I ~ the particular brand Of political
economy upon which these acts are
I grounded"