The Bismarck tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, N.D.) 1916-current, 1920-04-21
BRINT0N NEWSPAPER GRAB ACT .
CLEARLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL IS
OPINION OF CHRISTIANS0N
Justice Birdzell Takes Same PO-
sition on League
Act
ROBINSON is FOR BILL
His and Grace's Decision Deter.
mines Validity Of the
Measure ~ ,t

because TWO Out VI i've JuoIACCo VI
the supreme court upheld the con-
stitutionality Of the so-called Brinton
newspaper grab act yesterday, this
law will remain part of the statutes
of North Dakota. ..,'...
AS far as is known this is the
first time in the history OF any state
in the union, where the minority ol
a state supreme court decided the
constitutionallty OF any law. the
situation is made possible here by
constitutional provision which re
auires four favorable opinions on con
stitutional questions out OF five mem
bers of the state supreme court.
In the longest opinion rendered on
the case, Chief Justice A. M. Chris
tianson maintains the law in question
violates sections So and 81 of the state
constitution and is therefore uncon:
stitutional. This opinion is shared by
Justice Luther IL. iBirdzell, who gave
the shortest opinion on the case. JUS
tice j. f Robinson and Justice r.. II
Grace contended that the law was
constitutional Justice II. A. Bron:
son was disqualified and because Jus
tices Robinson and Grace had helt
that the law was constitutional, NC
steps were taken to name the nftl
Justice to determine the merits OF the
case. -.,- &" @u
Christiansons Opinion
. In his opinion, Justice Christensen
stated "the matter inserted in senate
Bill No. 157 relating to the designa
ton Of newspapers in which all OF
fetal and legal notices must be pun
lished was variant from and changed
the original purpose of the bill. That
the title is not broad enough to cover
the designation by the commission o.
newspapers in the various counties
of the state in which official notices
of counties and municipalities and
legal notices Of private parties must
be published That the act embraces
more than one subject
'.The obvious purpose of senate bill
No. 157 as introduced was to change
the personnel of the commission nav
ing charge of the state printing ano
to confer upon the commission as re
created the functions exercised by the
former commission and bring all
kinds of printing for the various state
departments under it's Jurisdictions
states Chief Justice Christianson in
his opinion.
Bill Changed
"A comparison of the original Dill
with the one enacted demonstrates
beyond cavfl that the matters in
serted in section during the course
of the passage continues Judge
Christianson, was wholly foreign L
the original purpose OF the bill. Il
section 5S Of the constitution can
ever be violated by inserting matter
in bill during the course OF its pass
age, which is foreign to and changes
the original purpose thereof, it Ger
tainly has been violated in this case
1T seems equally clear that the
matters inserted in the act by the
amendments is not expressed in the
title. 1t will be noted that the statute
is entitled An act creating a state
printing and publication commission;
prescribing it's duties and powers
and repeating all acts and parts O
act conflicting herewith
Obscurity Of Title
would anyone expect to find IN al
act entitled as the one under con
sideration anything in regard to the
newspapers which official proceed
ings and notices of counties anf
cities must be published? Woult
anyone about to foreclose mortgage
or probate an estate have the slightes
reason to apprehend that a law en-
titled as the one before us actuall!
changed the established law OF thu
state with respect to the newspaper:
in which foreclosure notices and cita
tions in probate proceedings must b'
published 1t seems to me tina
reasonable men can make but one
answer to these questions. 1
Our constitutional provision i
clear, direct and positive. NO oil
shall embrace more than one SUBJECT
which shall be expressed in its title
A single glance discovers that tn
title in this case meets no single re
quirement there specified.
Not Amendment
"But it is contended that section
IS and 81 of the constitution are IN
applicable to laws which have beel
submitted and approved at a refer
endum election 1t is even suggeste'
that an act approved is in effect
constitutional amendment This sug
gestiOn ignores the fact that dill
ferent method is provided for the sub
mission of constitutional amendments
whether proposed by initiative pet
ton or by the legislative assembly
from that provided for the submission
of a statute pursuant to a referendum
petition. 1t is the. duty of the cour
to uphold and give effect to ever
part of the constitution and this pre-
vision can only be enforced by refus
ing to recognize as an amendmen
that which meyer was legally adopte
as such 1t has never been contende
or supposed that the referendum
power was reserved for the purpos
of having questions relating to tn
cOnStitutiOnalitv of laws submitted I