Grand Forks herald. [volume] (Grand Forks, N.D.) 1916-1955, 1920-09-04
the petition was rendered or hled, or
under when It could exist ina legal
sense as q petition.

q petlU0nS WA tenoeE0o OF nle0, OF
under when II could exist In . legal
sense Is q petition.
# s. A court should en3oin submits
sion Of such 4 question where there
Is no law under which 1t could be
legally submitted to q vote.
The SoundneSs of the decision In
this case Of State ex rel. Linde vs.. Hall
was questioned, but, the New Rock
ford people apparently dropped the
entire matter and little more was
heard from It until a similar question
arose before the general election OF
1918, when petitions were prepared,
signed and offered for fling with the
secretary Of state. proposing other
constitutional amendments, among
them being an amendment to provide
simpler procedure.
Petitions Accepted. 4
The petitions were accepted and
certified to by the secretary OF state,
and, rs before. a taxpayer, this time
Treadwell Twitchell, sought an in
junction to restrain the secretary of
state from placing the proposed
amendments upon the ballot. There
was much Of the same sort Of argu-
ment as used in the original case of
State ex rel Linde vs.. Hall, although
additional questions as to Jurisdiction,
and the legality of Section 202, were
raised. In order that q complete
hearing might be had, the attorney
the ground OF lack of jurisdiction,
which motion was denied, and a de-
murrer and answer were also filed.
In this cas- OF State ex rel Twttch
ell VS.. Hall, the court ruled that Sec
ton 202 had legally been incorporated
into the constitution; Section 202 was
held to be ~self-executing and sur
ficient, without further action on the
part Of the legislative assembly; and
it was declared to be the executive
duty Of the secretary of state to file
and proceed as provided by law in
the case Of any petition proposing 4
constitutional amendment which met
legal requirements as to phraseology
and suft1ciency Of signatures. At that
time he law required the signatures
of more than Is per cent of the voters
in each Of one-half of the counties OF
the state, and this requirement existed
at the time the capital removal petit
tons were offered for file.
In this 81 Of Twitchell VS.. Hall
Justice Grace wrote the leading
opinion, and Justices Birdzell and
Robinson presented separate concur
ring opinions. Justices Christiansor
GILL Id y 0AoSCIllCu, JOSIkNO SAT4o'
Hanson writing a dissenting opinion.
At that time there was some tall
Of reviving the capital removal case
but he law provided that proposed
constitutional amendments must b,
published for three months preceding
the election at which they were to b,
voted upon, while the decision over
ruling that rendered in the capital re-
moval case was not promulgated unit
= October s, 191S-only thirty days be
8 fore the election of that year.
I Hall Declines.
: These facts were presented Il
a Thomas Hall, secretary Of state, b,
> Secretary =. F. Richards of the Com
!. munity club Of New Rockford
month ago. but Mr.. Hall declined t.
4 take upon his shoulders the responsi
n bility Of placing the question on tn
ballot Tor the coming general election
and in this decision he was supporte
q by Assistant Attorney General F. Z
Packard. The New Rockford peopl
= thereupon served notice upon counse
Bauer, In the original cas- Of State e
:, rel Linde VS.. Hall. of intention to pre-
sent to the supreme court q motto
to vacate n set aside the judEmeI
and reopen the Isl Of State ex RI
4 Linde vs. Hall. Such a motion coul
nave Deen mace at any time set apal
for the hearing of motions, wfthou
notice, but it was felt that such motto
"a to opposing counsel would be faire
and o above board, and migf
h save time. The motion appears upo
the supreme court calendar, issue
last week, and will be heard on Sci
TENDER Z, the opening day Of til
term. -
Usually it has been the practice I
regard UGH an overruled decision 9
the law of the particular case in whic
\ it was rendered, unless hardship {
irreparable injury would result fro1
allowing it to stand. In this partic,
lar instance the capital removal pet
tons represented the wishes of
large percentage of the voters Of til
state. who, as Justice Robinson hi
said, have fought a good fight" II
the privilege OF the initiative and re,
erendum, and the voice Of the Peep
is assuredly a loud voice.
Need New Building.
The original capital removal pet
tion4 propose moving the capital fro,
Bismarck to New Rockford on July
1922. The New Rockford poop
claim that a new capitol building mu
be erected within a comparatively fe
years. and. while it Is being built, wi
not place it where it will better ser,
the greater part OF the population