The weekly pioneer and Democrat. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1855-1865, 1860-02-03
AFTERNOON SESSION.

uIIIcc vi Iu0 w nOle, upon tne OILS under
consideration at the morning session, were
taken up. The bill for the abolition of
capital punishment was defeated-ayes %,
nays 33.
THE BOND QUESTION.
The bill in relation to foreclosing the
mortgages and trust deeds given to the
State, by the Railroad companies, coming
up, on its passage, as recommended by the
Committee of the Whole, occasioned con.
debate.
Mr.. SECOMBE was opposed to that
provision of the bill by which the State,
after foreclosng the properties. franchises,
lands, and privileges of the companies,
should hold the same, sin trust for, and as
a fund for the payment of the bona fide
holders of the first mortgage bonds of said
Railroad companies" He took ground
against recognizing the binding force of the
decision of the Supreme Court, in the man.
damus case, in which that tribunal decided
that the bonds ISIS ued by the companies to
the State did no. give the State prior
lien on the securities.
Mr.. MORRISON proposed an amend.
meat striking out from the different sections
of the, bill, the provision that the State
should hold the franchises of the companies
in trust for the "bona fide holders of the
first mortgage bonds issued by the Railroad
companies"
Mr.. GREENE, of Steele. opposed the
amendment; but said both the gentlemen
who preceded him, had found out exactly
what the bill meant. 1t contemplated plac-
ing the bonds held by the State, and the
first mortgage Railroad bonds held by
private individuals upon an equality.
Mr.. SANBORN supported the bill as
reported from the committee of the whole,
and opposed the amendment
Mr.. COGGSWELL (Mr. Acker in the
chair advocated the bill, as it came from
total amount of first mortgage bonds in the
hands of private parties, amounted to $613,-
900, $6OO,O OF which amount had been
issued by the Transit Company and $4,000
by the Minnesota and Pacific Company.
The speaker then went into review Of the
loan measure and contended that from its
inception, the mortgage bonds received by
the State had never been deemed a prior
lien upon the franchises and lands of the
companies, and that an attempt to make
them so. had been distinctly and plainly
made, but had failed. With this construc-
ton given to the loan amendment THAT the
State had no prior lien) the people ratified
it by large majority. The Governor then
attempted to construe the Constitution so
as to give the State a first lien, but his con-
struction was Overruled by the Supreme
Court of the State, and the decision given
that the bonds issued to individuals and
those to the State, stood on exactly the
same footing. These were the facts, no
matter how much we may regret their exis-
tence. Now, the question is, shall the leg
islature of this State, attempt to nullify the
acts of a preceding Legislature set at
defiance decision of the Supreme Court
and destroy vested rights. In September
and October it was commended before
the people by certain parties, that there
was no authority in the State officers to
foreclose, and bid in for the State, the
franchises and lands of defauting compa-
MES, but we all came here resolved and
pledged to grant such power. Our object
should be to obtain the HANDSPRING them
back to the State, and not enter upon a
career of vexatious litigation, which would
most assuredly ensue, if an attempt was
made to destroy the rights of bondholders.
1t was an extraordinary ground to assume,
that the bona fde holders of the first mort
gage bonds af the companies should be de-
MED all legal means of redress. Such
position could be very we'll assumed by
those who denied the legality of the loan
measure, but not by men who acknowledge
e Al. <11C {,fn
and as valid as any other portion of that
instrument. The moment we admit the va
lidity of the loan amendment, we are in duty
bound to protect the interests of Individual
bondholders equally with those Ofthe State.
This may be sada state of facts we are
not responsible but the parties are, who
gave the loan measure life and vitality. If
the State refused justice to individual bond
holders, suits would be instituted, and years
might elapse before the State would secure
title to the lands and franchises of the
companies, so as to be able to transfer the
roads to parties who would construct them.
Mr.. Coggswell concluded his speech by
urging the passage of the bill as it came from
the Senate.
Mr.. MANN opposed the bill in its pres
ent shape. Under it, the State would never
be able to get title to the lands; but
would 60 on, continually holding them in
trust, without the power to dispose of them.
Mr.. SECOMBE criticised the decision
of the Supreme Court; contended it should
not have been recognized by Governor
Sibley as authority; and pitched into the
loan measure as void in legal sense, al
though he admitted the people in voting for
it, became, to certain extent, morally
responsible.
Mr.. COGGSWELL intimated that he
also saw "colored individual' in the bill.
1t was the intention of some of the oppo-
nents of this bill to oppose all measures to
get US out of our Railroad difficulties, unless
certain petty local interests were cared for.
He contended, in reply to Mr.. Mann, that
under the bill the State could obtain clear
and absolute title to the lands and road beds
Of the present companies.
Mr.. SWEET offered resolution that a
Special Committee of three be appointed to
inquire into the amount of the FIRST mortgage
bonds, issued by the several Railroad Com.
panies, which are now out standing.
A vote had previously been taken upon