The Bismarck tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, N.D.) 1916-current, 1927-08-22
JUDGE. HEARS
ARGUMENTS IN
GAMM0NS CASE
Material Question Is Whether
Funds Are Legally Avail
1850 able, He Says

District Judge Fred Jansonius to-
day took under cons liberation the
question Of whether John Gammons
should receive salary as secretary OF
the industrial commission for the
month Of July. {.
Arguments on the subject were
presented this morning and ut their
close Judge Jansonius commented
that the only material question at
issue seemed to be whether funds to
pay the salary arc legally available.
Lammons is asking writ Of man
7t1mus to compel the state auditing
board to approve payment Of his
..salary.
William LANCER. appearing for Gov
ernor A. G. Sorlie and the auditing
:board. admitted that the governors
Faction in appointing Gilbert SEEMING
son, state bank examiner, to succeed
I Gammons as industrial commission
secretary without pay was merely
gesture. It was made, LANCER said,
in -crt4er that Gammons might have
notice that he would not be paid for
his services after that time.
<. BY vetoing the appropriation for
his salary, LANCER said, the COVER
nor served constructive notice on
GaMmons that he would not be paid
after July | and his appointment of
Semingson was merely additional no
tice made with the intention of
bringing the matter to a head.
ThOrpe's Contention Attacked
. LANCER attacked the contention of
John Thorpe, special assistant attor-
ney general representing Gammons
and the state, that the balance of
$4,000 remaining to the industrial
commissions credit is available to
: pay the salary of the secretary. He
. contended that it should have re-
.verted to the general fund in 1921.
The fund in question is what remains
Of 100000 appropriated by the 1919
legislature for the uses Of the in
dustrial commission under the act
!: creating it.
--s.0fonse was that the clause in the
i industrial commission law commonly
referred to as the "vcto clause" re-
quir9.- the approval Of the governor
before any orders of the commission
can be effective and that the COVER
nor had refused TO order payment of
4 amnons' salary from the balance in
tie industrial commission fund.
Ilorpe contended that the 1919
appropriation was continuing APP
preparation and cited the law to show
that it was made Ito carry out" the
purposes of the act without time
: limitation. Appropriations not in
tended to be continuing appropria-
tlons, he said, are made fOr-a speci-
: ftesfperiod. He cited various appro-
priation laws to show the difference
ln-phraseology used by the legisla-
. tUfe in such cases.
/: lands Used for Other Purposes
sqhOrpe offered in evidence IA list
!. showing the money drawn BY the
: AoF from the indus trial com
Missiona fund to pay his travelling
expenses and other data show ing
tt5 the fund had been used to pay
salaries in 1922, 1928 and 1924 In
: AVIATION. he said, the auditing board
barred itself from contending that
. the fund is not available to pay Gam
. n19sSS salary by ordering the payment
from 1t Of his salary for the first
week in July. Gammons had served
one week in July before the governor
announced the appointment of Sem
; ingson to serve without salary in his
place.
The industrial commission law
does not give the governor the veto
power over acts of the industrial
commission, Thorpe said, pointing
: out that in practice this power has
been applied only to written con-
. tracts. To interpret the clause to
mean that the governor must APP
!. prove every action Of the commission
: would be out of harmony with legal
precedent and would serve to make
. the two remaining members of the
Scommlssion, a majority, merely nom
entities, he said. He will present a
brte1 further developing this conten-
tioh-.and citing cases to prove it. he
said. and charged the defense with
14rying to create an impossible sit
nation" by attempting to construe the
industrial commission law to give
the governor an absolute veto power
over the commissions actions.
To File Briefs
Judge Jansonius said he would take
the case under consideration, giving
special attention to the question of
whether the. 1919 appropriation is
still available or whether it should
nave reverted to the general fund in
1924 Both Thorpe and LANCER were
Z given time in which to file written
briefs and q stipulation as to facts
was entered in order to have the
record in shape for appeal to the
supreme court should either side de-
eide to take such action after the
district court decision is rendered.
An amusing point was brought to
) light in conversation after the
formal hearing when Thorpe in
formed LANCER that the latter, while
attorney general, had given an opin-
zion which held that the 1919 appro-
priation was continuing one and did
: not lapse at the end Of the biennial
period in which it was made.