The weekly pioneer and Democrat. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1855-1865, 1858-11-25

hailfoan companies, eAPecteu 'ne o'"to
would be secured by priority Of lien upon
all the property Of each respectively, 30 as
To exonerate the State, in any supposable
case. from ioas
Under the ruling Of the Governor, no one
doubts that the State would have been am
ply protected against injury on account d
the loan. The sale Of prior securities upon
the roads, lands, and franchises Of these
companies, would ~ any time, have realized
sufficient 10 indemnify the State against los
90 account Of in,erest or principal. Whelh'
er the State ia equally safe under the de-
cision Of the Supreme Court, will appear
from an examination Of the securities now
possessed, and their availability. These Sc
curities are -
Fpa, A pledge Of the net profits Of each
road for the payment Of interest;
Second, A conveyance Of two hundred and
forty sections Of land in trust;
THIRD, An amount Of FIRST mortgage
bonds, without priority Of lien. from each
company TO the State.
The pledge Of net profits before any part
Of u road is completed, Of course amounts to
nothing. Neither does the conveyance Of
two hundred and forty sections Of land for
no land by the terms Of the Congressional
grant, can pass into the possession OF the
Companies, until twenty miles OF each road
il completed and in operation and even
then it il doubtful If deficiency exists
within the fifteen miles limit, whether it will
be allowed to be made good from other
points along the line. before the entire road
shall be actually finished. Al least. there
is no ruling from the General Land Office
which indicates consent that such deficit
should be 40 made up On the other hand,
it IL well known, that but small portion
Of the land TO which the Companies would
be entitled, is TO be found within fifteen
miles Of the road on each side for distance
Of forty or fifty miles. Consequently. the
conveyance Of the first two hundred and for.
ty sections to the State by each company.
Is . conveyance Of what it does not possess.
and Of what 1t may never receive. And It
is evident that, as security. immediate and
available. TO guard the State from loss,
in case Of default on the part OF these
corporations such u conveyance Is practical
ly Of no value whatever. The only other SC
cur,ty. therefore. and. indeed, the only tan
giblc security to the State, Of present value,
ia that of the bonds OF tho companies cores
pondng in amount TO those issued by the
State to them. by the ruling Of tho Gov
crnor, as we have already remarked. these
would have been ample for they consiitu-
ted On exclusive fins, lien upon all the pro-
pcriy Of the companies OF every description;
aud summary foreclosure aud sale would
have placed the State in possession OF album
dant means TO meet my dciaul, on their
part by the decision Of tho Supreme
Court, however. tverruling the construction
Of the Governor. the State viii hold 81 $50.
coo Of the bonds Of cnoh company, which
are no more valuable than the remainder Of
the s23000O0o. sl0000.O0O. and 49,.
600 900 Of bonds which the companies res,
pectively may deem proper to issue, In
this matter OF security, then, it Is true, as
has becn said, that the lender in this case is
at the entire mercy Of the borrower. The
State furnishes s20 1000 per mile. which ia
sufficient 10 complete and stock the roads
and the companies very literally deliver
back to the State security upon the same
work ut tbs rate Of $4,000 or $50, 900 per
mile. and not even prior security at that.
The State only shares equally with others.
TO. 'an. a.nli;. :ipa,;lhi,a :iiai:ount, at these
I:ucp!N..to iiie: What would be
thoaSht OF iheprudeoe " a Vsn i. il %,uid
I:rnEO! s2Qcoh af b. .HA uOacs, IN: max
Ing improvements upon his own land, aud
then sell it TO u ucghbor. and, wiihou. re
ociving any part OF the purchase money
take security at the rate Of s3j,0Oo upon
the same property Why, judged by the
rules OF ordinary business prudence, snch a
inanc,cr would be called maniac.
We have thus cnicayorcd TO act forth, As
plainly and fairly as We are able. the practi
cal difference, 50 far AS security TO the State
is concerned. between the effects OF the ruling
OF the Governor and the decision OF the Su.
preme Court We do not. by this, either
directly or iufsreu,iallly. impugn the pro.
pretty or legal justice Of ,ba, decision. The
judgment OF that Court is final and conclu.
sive On the question Of construction. and it
will be carried into etfec, by the Governor
u