The producers news. [volume] (Plentywood, Mont.) 1918-1937, 1920-05-07
SUPREME COURT HITS
ANTI-FARMER ':::
LAWYER
TAXPAYERS" SUIT AGAINST
NORTH DAKOTA PRlGR AM
HEARD BY HIGHEST JUDICIAL
BODY.

Washington. n. REPRESENTATION
of the appeal of the case of the ~:
taxpayers against the new indus
trial legislation of North Dakota was
marked by rs strong ccnsure of their
attorneys as the judges could give
short OF ordering them out of court.
N. G. Young, railroad lawyer OF
Fargo. n d., and Tracy Bangs of
Grand Forks, n. D., lawyer for the
telephone interests of the Northwest
had the courage, or better, lack of
sense to appear before the highest
court in the land with the same kind
of haranguc against the farmer pro-
gram as is commonly given before
commercial club audiences.
Young began with a reference to
the revolutionary character of the
North Dakota amendments and laws.
Then he switched to a discourse on
unfolding the inherent and reserved
rights of the citizen to keep his own
property.
After more than 10 minutes of such
talk Chief Justice White asked: ''My
dear sir, do you realize that you have
told us nothing of the laws you refer
to- That we are not yet informed
as to whether it applies to anything
on the earth or the moon or stars ~
mot LISTENING"
~ will come to that later, in logic
al ORDER" answered Young.
Presently Justices McReynolds and
Mckcnna protested that Young WAS
not letting them into his secret. The
chief Justice then seeing that his
first rcproof was not sufficient de-
clarcd that Young might as well not
be making an argument and that he
was not listening because the case
itself had not yet been described.
Justice Mckenna inquired whether
the law provided that the state could
"run Il bicycle shop, or WHAT"
"lf your honors please" replied
Young, IL shall come to that very
soon in its logical order"
When Young finally reached the
North Dakota program the entire
court showed him marked attention.
Questions were shot at him from all
along the bench.
Bangs then took foung'a place and
met the barragc of inquiry.
The justices wanted to know wheth-
err Young claimed that the fourteenth
amendment prohibited state from
doing any business Il private citizen
could do. And did he claim that any
previous decision had established il
precedent against the North Dakota
legislation:
"Why shouldn't the state operate a
bank" Young was asked.
ut might properly do so for bona
tide banking purposes of its treasury"
Young responded in substance, "but
this bank was started merely to fin
ance these industries"
"WORDS," SAYS JUSTICE
"Well," replied Justice McReynoltls,
land why should not the state go in
to bsuiness ~
"Why, that is taking money from
the taxpayer without due process"
answered Young.
"That is merely Words" responded
the justice, 1--WE are interested in
reasons"
Later an attempt by Bangs to show
that recent decision of the courts
allowing Portland, Maine, to operate
fuel yards did not apply because the
fuel situation was an emergency met
with correction from Chief Justice
White.
The case is the result of an appeal
from the decision Of the federal dis
trict court sitting at Fargo against
the "42 taxpayers" The supreme
court of North Dakota has also de-
clded against them, and the appeal
to the federal supreme court was I'M
doubtedly due to hope of delaying
rather than in overthrowing what the
people of North Dakota have been
fighting for during the last 10 years.
There is no way of fOrecastinr
when the supreme court will render
its decision in this vital case.