The Bismarck tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, N.D.) 1916-current, 1927-04-20
REPLY TO oLsNEss

NVtts ~. OaNs, SAftb w.
Editor Tribune:
In the controversy which has arisen
between Commissioner Olsness and
the state hail department on one
side, and many Of the farmers on the
other, Mr.. Olsness has set forth in
the press his version Of the matter
and l believe an impartial press will
accord the same courtesy to- an
"honest to goodness dirt farmer"
In reading Mr.. Olsness' article !
feel he has overlooked two funda-
mental facts:
list. That the hail insurance de-
partmcnt was established for the
benefit and protection Of the farm
ers.
End. That it is only the duty of
the commissioner and state hail in
surance department to justly and
fairly administer the law as passed
rOgate to themselves the further as
sumed duty to prevent such changes
in the law which experience mas
shown were needed.
Defects were discovered in the hail
insurance law as it now stands,
which have worked gross injustice
to many of the farmers Of the state.
The farmers brought these defects ia
the attention Of the legislature, and
at the outset were met with opposi-
ton from Mr.. Olsness and the de-
partment with such persistency as ia
lead one to believe that this law was
enacted for the benefit Of Mr.. OILS.
ness and the hail department, instead
Of for the benefit Of the farmers OF
the state.
When it appeared that majority
Of the members of the Legislature
were persuaded to the side Of thu
farmers, Olsness is reported to have
made the statement before the bill:
we're even out Of the insurance com
mittec Of the house, that If thes,
particular amendments passed, thu
governor would veto them. refer
to the Pathman bills. At this tim,
this statement did not attract much
! attention, but, when the governor die
veto them, as MIR. Olsness is reported
to have said he would, we canno
help but wonder.
J One Of the proposed amendm ent!
in which the farmers were intereste,
was to give the farmer the right o
| appeal from the decision of the hal
insurance commissioner, the right I,
| bring his matter into court and hav,
| the controversy determined by an i'm
partial tribunal and by jury of hi
peers. Is this not good America,
| doctrine?
The department, says Olsncss, il
his article, should be much NOR
conversant and competent than tn
courts in this respect" How pre-
sumptuous One would be led L
believe that Olsness and Hagen ar
SO pregnant with knowledge and per
lection that by daily association witt
the GODDESS Of Wisdom" they coul,
not absorb one new idea. wonde
if they ascribe to Governor Sorli
the same wisdom, or. if he is mercl
the me too" Of the trio, signing o.
the dotted line.
(. That there have been claims re
jectcd which were equitable an,
where the farmer acted in good faith
because they were in conflict wit
the departments Interpretation o
law and Of the facts, cannot b
truthfully denied.
II Olsness feels that under tn
law ais it now is. the department
cannot grant relief in certain eases
though equitable and just. then VIII
should he use all of the influene,
and mower in his command to proven
the law from being SO amended tina
relief could be granted?
| The other proposition in which tn
farmers were interested and agains
which Olsness used all Of his inf!u
ence To defeat, and which was vetoe,
by the governor, was to make al
parties who administer the hail in
surance law, including the assessors
the agents Of the department and no
Of the individual farmer as Olsncs
now claims they are.
The hail department pays the as
SCISSORS for this work. They prescribe
the rules and regulations which the
assessors must follow; with this tn,
farmers have nothing to do. Yet il
the assessors should make a mistake
the farmer, according to Olsness
must stand the loss, after having