The Bismarck tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, N.D.) 1916-current, 1935-03-05
SUPREME court TO
DECIDE + SCHOOL
AID BILL IS LEGAL
Friendly Action Instituted by
Satire to Determine
ConstitutIonality
BILL PROVIDES 100000
Complaint Asserts Section IT'S
Of Constitution Violated by
Divsrting Fund
BILL PROVIDES 100000

Into the hands OF four supreme
court Justices Tuesday Was placed the
question Of coustitutionality Of the
legislative measures designed to dis
tribute a. 100000 from the state hail
insurance surplus fund among rural
schools Of the state.
Submitted to the court shortly be-
fore noon. after nearly three hours Of
argument, the question WAS expected
to Be determined either late In the
day Or Wednesday.
In friendly attack, Attorney Gen.
eral p. O. Satire and his assistant,
Charles Verret. maintained that the
law, Is drawn, was unconstitutional.
Alternate llethoa oueriod
In questions directed TO counsel, the
court confined itself principally 70
the second method Of distribution out
lined In the act.
The second provision provides the
u ,000, 900 shall be distributed hack to
school districts through county treas
urers, on the basis Of the amount Of
flat hail tax paid BY the counties In
1877. Under provisions Of the act,
landowners who paid the taxes would
receive credits In proportio n . te
amounts on their delinquent or future
school taxes.
Satire maintained the first provi-
sion Of the act, calling for . transfer
Of 4l,000OQ0 from the hail insurance
fund to the state equalization fund
was unconstitutional.
This method would b inOquitable
and unjust" Satire maintained. I'VE
hold 1t Is clearly unconstitutional"
Verret. on the other hand, disagreed
with his chief, asserting that while
the first method was unconstitutional
the second could not be maintained,
regardless Of Interpretation placed on
the oct.
Questions verret's Coutention
Justice A. NJ. Christianson question.
ed counsel: IT there Is enough In the
second method to constitute workable
law. Is it not possible to hold the
mode Of distribution may be used, a.
though no refunds could 60 back to
the private owners?"
His question followed on the con-
tention by Verret that no refund
could be made TO the landowners, q
proposed under the act, for such =
plan Of refund to private owners Is
clearly unconstitutional"
Verret insisted the court might not
hold In this fashion, claiming It would
be necessary for . new law to b drawn
and passed.
Judge w. L. Nuessle took exception
to this shotgun method OF legisla-
ton. Apparently they have written
three inconsistent measures into one
act"
Chief Justice Burke expressed the
opinion the legislature had some
doubts 6 to the constitutionality Of
the measure and that Il why Il was
drawn that way"
Satire In his closing argument
conceded the second method was
legal"
Center Of the legal argument was
tho law drawn BY Representatives
Traynor. odesard and Hin and rush-
Cd through the legislature Saturday,
to be signed q few minutes later by
Governor Walter Wexford.
The action was instituted Monday
BY Attorney General Satire. who
brought = friendly Injunction suit
against State Treasurer John Gray,
State Auditor Berta Z. Baker and
State Insurance Commissioners Harold
Hopton.
CONTINUED on Page TWo)