The Bismarck tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, N.D.) 1916-current, 1933-03-28
Foeeign Representative
SMALL SPENCER, BREWER
(lncorporated)
CHICAGO NEW YORK BOSTON
LANCER Must Answer

AAASsS4OuCA VI 06A ASNAsAAC oAAA AesSNAs -
which he asserted that Governor
Langer's veto Of the appropriation for
the state dairy department will cost
North Dakota farmers thousands of
dollars, calls for an answer by the
governor II he has one.
Although Husby's assertions were
made with the avowed purpose Of
clarifying the situation. they consti-
tute an accusation Of the governor In
the one particular which he has avow-
ed IS closest to his heart; the well
fare Of the farmer.
In effect, the HUSKY charge is that
the governor renders the farmer lip
service and crashes the headlines in
his alleged behalf but ignores their
welfare In those official acts which
really mean something.
It has long been the habit Of the
governor. when he meets opposition,
to charge those who disagree with him
with bad faith and to claim their as
sertions are falsehoods. He has done
this on occasion when competent tes-
timony could have been adduced to
prove that the governor was either in
dulging in Misrepresentation or else
possessed conveniently faulty men,
ory.
This case Is not open to that sort
Of defense. He did veto practically
the entire appropriation for the dairy
department, leaving only enough to
pay the salary OF the dairy commits
sioner and giving him absolutely moth
ing to work with. He did fall to ex-
plain the reason for this unprecedent-
ed action.
MIR. HUSKY makes the point that the
dairy department Is one of the few
activities Of the state government di-
rectly concerned with the welfare of
the farmer and with nothing else.
The governor should have known that.
Il he did not he could have learned.
$50
One OF the most surprising phases
Of Husby's statement was the asser-
ton that the veto came as q surprise
to him and that he had not been ask
ed for information on the subject.
In view Of the fact that HUSKY and
LANCER were elected by the same
political faction, it was to be assumed
that the governor would have given
the commissioner Of agriculture and
labor the courtesy Of asking for infor-
nation on 50 vital subject. The fact
that he did not proves one Of several
things and none Of them speak well
for Governor LANCER. Either he had
. reason for the veto outside Of any
which he would care to give the pub
lie; he was interested in Furnishing
HUSKY for some real or fancied politi-
cal disaffection, or it was q nantes
tation Of personal arrogance and dis
regard for the welfare Of the farmer.
The governors prating about sup
porting the farmers interests will not
overshadow this important executive
act and its consequences.
HUSKY asserts he has no informa-
ton g to the reason why the COVER.
nor vetoed this appropriation but he,
as well e others. could make q pref
ty accurate guess. One needs only to
look Ut recent political happenings to
find q reasonable answer.
= = =
When HUSKY. LANCER and other
Nonpsrtisau officials took office there
were already indications that the gov.
ernor intended to establish himself
Is supreme. both politically and Is
the final word n what every state de-
partment should do. h took It upon
himself to Issue orders which he had
no right 70 give and 70 promise FOX
the various department. heads things
which he had no authority to promise.
Some officials Of the state govern.
ment resented this. Each Of them re-
called that he had been elected to Of
flee BY = much larger majority than
was the governor: that The expression
Of public confidence had been much
more complste Ia their cass than in
Tho cass q The govsfnor. They felt
that the constitution ana the laws
sstting forth thsir duties should -
obeyed and that, while the governor
would - given . respectful hearing,
HI Obligation q operating their Of
does was their own.
In ahort, they disagreed with the
governor. In some cases he has &C.
eused them Of ''bucking" him and has