Mineral Point weekly tribune. (Mineral Point, Wis.) 1859-1868, 1867-03-13


statement. that he at the time. was
President of the road, and | have a
right to assume, and | have a right to
/ ask You to assume, that Mr.. Strong at
/ that time thought that the road had
/ the right and authority to issue those
J bonds and secure them by that mort
/ gage. To draw any other Inference
would be to suspect him of intending
at that time to impose upon whoever
might become in the future the owner
Of those 40 bonds. Mr.. Strong is
above suspicious of that kind, and we
must, therefore, charitabIv conclude.
either, that he is a better lawyer now.
than he was then, Notwithstanding his
long absence from the practice has
somewhat shaken his confidence in
himself, or that his change of relation
to the practice has carried with it a
convenient and necessary change Of
opinion
Whether his opinion was right then
or IS right now, shall leave to the
Courts to determine, and not ask the
Committee to pass upon a question
that can have no influence IN determ-
ming the proprietv Of repeating the
act of 1866.
The second proposition Of Mr.
Strong Is, that the Railroad executed
a mortgage to @. L. SCHUYLER for
$500, 900, which was first mortgage,
and not invalid because of the exer-
cise Of an excess Of power and to
establish this proposition, he cites au-
thorities and unfolds a manuscript Of
the great legal-lumirary of his own
native State, Judge Redfeld.
Whether this mortgage Of Schuyler
was a first mortgage or not. is ques-
ton for the Courts to settle. and de-
pendS upon matters of fact and ques-
tions Of law. The Railroad insists as
facts, that the Railroad company never
did execute and deliver any mortgage
TO Geo. l.. Schuyler, as the first mort
gage contemplated by the law Of 1858,
and by the proposition to the County,
and by the second mortgage to the
State Treasurer that Geo. l.. Schuv-
Ter never did become, IN fact or by
operation of law, the trustee of tae
Company; that the Directors Of the
Board. at one time. contemr = ed
taking up and returning the second
mortgage. by returning to the County
It's bonds, and not issuing, or if issued.
bv not using the other 20 bonds Sc
cured by the second mortgage and
that to accom- plish this. they made
out mortgage for $500. 900 mot the
one contemplated by the law Of 1859
to Geo. L. Schuyler, to secure the
500 bonds Of $1,000 each.
That they failed to accomplish their
object; that Geo. L. Schuyler never
accepted the trust that no other per-
son ever accented the trust that the
bonds for S50O.OO0. secured by that
mortgage, never went out Of the hands
Of the Railroad company; that the
mortgage was never used or in any
way become operative. that the Com
/ panv never used any Of the bonds, and
that if any were used by any one it
was done surreptitiously and fraudu-
/ lently. and in such a way as to not
bind the Company. and that without
using any of those bonds, the Com
panv set aside and cancelled them all.
without in any way affecting Its right
( to issue the first mortgage referred to
/ in the law of 1858, and in the propo-
sition 10 the County. and IN the sec
/ ond mortgage. and that the mortgage
\ to Conan and Martin was the frst and
only mortgage that it ever executed
and availed itself of under the law
Of 1858
/ These are matters 20 be settled by
+ the proper legal tribunals, and not
by the gentleman's opinion, or Judge
Redfeld's opinion, or the opinion Of
/ the honorable Committee and the
I settlement Of them, either the one
wav or the other, can have no possible
/ influence in determining the proprlety
or improperly Of repeating the law
\. The first point submitted by the
/ gentlemen against the repeal OF the
/ law Is that :. the 7a1c does not confer any
nelc rt7its upon the County, nor any potcer.
Z ,tyeoa the Court, tldich II did not ALREADY
I. possess"
4 Can it be possible that the learned
gentleman appeared before the Judi
ciarv Committee Of the Assembly last
! Winter. and before the Judiciary Com
mittee Of the Senate also. and 50 sue
cessfullv impressed upon the minds O
those honorable and learned legal gen
tlemen the fact that the bill before
them conferred no rights upon eltheI
parties or Courts, or IN any way ef