The Bismarck tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, N.D.) 1916-current, 1925-06-18
COURT UPH0LDS
TATE SCHOOL
INSURANCE ACT
Judge Fred JansOnius Rules
for Commission in Suit
Brought by Minot
LAW is CONSTITUTIONAL
Districts Must Garry Fire
and Tornado Indemnity
With N. D. Board
LAW is CONSTITUTIONAL

School districts in North Dakota
must carry insurance on their build
ings with the state insurance COM
mission, according to an opinion
handed down by Judge Fred Janson-
ius in Burleigh county district court
today in which he denied the Minot
school district writ prohibiting S.
A. Olsness, as commissioner of in
surance, from compelling the district
to insure its buildings with the state.
Judge Jansonius stated in his opin-
ion that the only question in the
case was the constitutionality Of the
law establishing a state fire and tor
rado fund for insurance, and that
his conclusion is that the act in
question does not conflict with any
provision of the constitution.
Carried Insurance
The Minot school district alleged
in its application for a writ on pro-
hibition against Commissioner, Ols-
ness that it carried heavy insurance
on buildings with old line companies
and that the property of the district
would be placed in jeopardy if the
district was forced to cancel it's in
surance with the old line companies,
as the state insurance commission
is practically insolvent and would be
unable to pay claims in the event Of
a disastrous fire or tornado.
Judge Jansonius' opinion follows:
"The legislative session of 1918
passed an act creating and establish
ing a state fire and tornado fund for
insurance Of public buildings of the
state or political subdivisions there
of.
"A careful reading of the act and
amendments leaves no doubt as to
what the legislature intended. The
intention was to- have all public
buildings insured by the state. It
specifically provides that school dis.
tricts are included.
$50, there is only one question: Is
this act constitutional. If it is the
law, it should be enforced. If the
legislature exceeded it's constitu-
tional authority, Of course. the act
would be imperative.
have given this matter careful
consideration because it affects
every community in the state.
ut is elementary that every pre-
sumption is in favor of the consti-
tutionality of statute enacted by
the legislature. The test Of the
validity of an act is whether it vi.
olates any of the express or implied
restrictions of the state of federal
constitution.
II have reviewed the authorities
submitted to me, and in my opinion
the law is similar to the bonding
law act, and practically the same OBJ
jections urged against the bonding
act were urged against the constitu-
tionality of this act.
"Under the bonding act. the only
bond that can be furnished at public
expense is a state bond. So with the
insurance law. the only insurance
that may be carried on public build
ings at public expense is the state
Useless Provision
ut is true a public officer may
under the bonding act, furnish his
own bond at his own expense, and
while the insurance act is silent on
that matter, the chances that anyone
would insure a public building at
MS own expense are SO reInoIe lila
such a permission would have beer
a useless provision.
plaintiff complains that this Law
is an unwise piece of legislation
Courts are not concerned with the
wisdom, necessity or expediency OF
legislation.
1.-THE legislature represents the
people Of the state and is RESPONSE
BILE to the people of the state and As
long as the acts are within the con-
stitutional limits, the courts have nc
right to interfere.
', Duty of Court !.
"The principal duty of court il
to put in force legislative acts
That is the main function of th'
courts and as announced in the cas'
of State ex rel Line VS.. Taylor 'un
less they are plainly and palpably
beyond all question, in violation O.
the fundamental law they must b'
upheld :.
"My conclusion is that the act il
question does not conflict with an!
provision Of our constitution.
"An application for q writ on pro
hibition will therefore be denied"