The Bismarck tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, N.D.) 1916-current, 1930-06-09
A Sign of the Times

When the supreme court of the United States recently
ta,nded down a decision supporting the North Dakota
Alard of railroad commissioners in an important freight
tie case, it was a sign of the times in North Dakota.
beFor the supreme courts decision constituted a victory,
ant only for a Nonpartisan state railroad board but for
oh I. V. A. attorney general. And therein lies inc IN
LEGATION OF a new order.
Gilt is not many years since it was taken for granted
onat whate, or the members of one political faction might
-, the members of the opposing faction would be against
! To the rabid partisans of yesteryear all that was good
y under their own party label. All that was bad lurked
ldcr the label of "the enemy"
but that attitude was conspicuous by its absence in the
eight rate case. After taking reans Of testimony. the
abroad board came to the conclusion that justice and
air play demanded a revision of the freight distributing
ties in North Dakota. Cities in the central and vest
I'm parts of the state were being Disseminated against
4 favor OF cities along the eastern border. To locate a
distributing house in some of the western towns would
ave been commercial suicide because Of an artificial,
nwarranted and p%rejudicial discrimination in the mat
or of freight rates.
So the railroad board ordered into effect a new rate
tructure, designed to eliminate this prejudice. 1t con-
eived this as the fair tlting to do.
The railroads promptly challenged the order in the
ourts and here the attorney general entered the picture.
| Time was when an attorney general Of the opposing polit-
cal faction, regardless OF its name. would have wished,
and none too secretly, that the railroad board consisting
If political opponents would meet swift and ignominious
iefeat. But not so in this case.
: The honesty and sincerity of the railroad board was
Unmatched in full measure by the sincerity and loyal CO.
Operation OF the attorney general.
w There was no lackadaisical, half-heartcd response to
hahe suit begun by the railroads. The defense was prompt
phnd vigorous. But in the federal district court the rail-
a roads won.
The battle was promptly carried to the supreme court
of the United States. The railroad board circularized
,nother state regulatory bodies of the country, telling them
NOT the case and that the principle of states rights was at
tLstake. Thirty-seven Of them joined in supporting North
appeal.
OF The attorney general. in the fight to the finish, burned
!, a,,midnight oil in preparing a brief. He worked night and
aIday outlining the states case and preparing the legal
evidence to support it. The brief was printed and sent
Washington.
&c Then came the trial. Only a few minutes were spent
the representatives of the state in outlining the basis
" for their appeal. They were excused and for the next
plhour attorneys for the railroads had a bad time of it as
the judges hurled question after question from the bench.
" The judges had reviewed the decision of the state railroad
board and had carefully digested the brief of the attor-
,ey general. The railroad boards decision had been just
and the attorney generals brief proved 1t. The state
ii won its case.
n 1t is a sign of the times-and better times-when Of
pl ficeholders OF opposing political factions can work to-
Y gethcr SO tremendously for the welfare of the state. OF
y course there is no good reason why this should not be
= the case always. All officeholders are elected by the same
body of voters and the same body Of taxpayers foots the
: bill. That similar instances have been none too common
D in the past has been a misfortune.
, After all, it is the interest of the state and of its pco-
!, pie which is of paramount Importance. To a public Off
" cal worthy Of his office, considerations of party and of
politics should be secondary. That such was the case in
the suit before the supreme court speaks well indeed for
!, two separate branches OF the state government.
+ For the Nonpartisan board Of railroad commissioners
1 and for the I. v. A. attorney general.