Grand Forks herald. [volume] (Grand Forks, N.D.) 1916-1955, 1922-02-28
THE GRAIN GRADING CASE.
The federal supreme eourt has affirmed

The federal supreme court has affirmed the de-
gslslon OF the circuit court of appeals-which was a
;eversal OF the decision of the federal district court
or this state, in the case involving the validity of
he state grain grading law. Aside from whatever
'earing 1t may have on the grain grading situation
s such, the decision is of importance because since
IS inception it has been used by a few pettifogging
politicians for the purpose of beclouding the DO
itical situation in North Dakota.
i The suit was begun at the instance of a farm
RS elevator company in the southern part of the
tate Tor the purpose of clarifying the grading sys-
EN- and establishing a basis on which those whose
BUSINESS 1T is to handle wheat could do so intelli-
GENTLY. This cooperative concern, like every other
sander OF grain in the state, found itself required to
moose between two conflicting laws. The federal
government had enacted a general grading law, es-
abllshlng certain rules for the grading of grain.
state government had enacted another law,
With a different set of rules. To obey one law
meant to violate the other, and in each case severe
s~oenalties were prescribed for violation.
The farmers interested in this particular ele-
4ayator employed counsel and brought suit for the
purpose of determining which of the >wo laws must
De followed. They were advised that the state law
appeared to be in violation of a valid federal law,
md on that basis the state law was attacked in the
courts. The decision just handed down is that the
state law is unconstitutional, the decision sustaining
July the position taken by the plaintiff elevator
company.
The original attorneys in the suit were O'Con-
Tor and johnson, then in partnership in Grand
Forks. While the suit was in progress Mr.. O'Con=
nor became a candidate for governor, and he was
violently abused by league newspapers and league
speakers for "subserviency to big business" in at
lacking a state law. Later, when Mr.. Johnson be-
came a candidate for attorney general he was as
sailed in like manner, Notwithstanding the fact that
tilelr clients were themselves farmers, operating a
cooperative farmers business. Mr.. Johnson's con-
3nection with the case ceased as a matter of course
when he assumed the office of attorney general.
Three of the judges on the supreme bench dis
sented from the majority decision, but those who
have been so vociferous in their defense of the state
law will get little comfort out of that. Judge
Brandeis, voicing the opinion of the minority, held
that the law itself should not have been declared
unconstitutional, but that only such parts of it as
were in conflict with the federal law should have
been eliminated. Inasnuch as this would have
brought the two laws into harmony the result would
have been the same, SO far as the essential points at
issue were concerned.
The situation is, then, that the entire court
holds that essential features of the state law are in
valid. The majority therefore. declares the entire
Jaw Of no effect, and the minority believes that it
should have been fixed by bringing it into harmony
with the federal law.