The anti-monopolist. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1874-1878, 1875-10-04
WHOLE NO. 65

w l1OLL 1NOs OC
sixty days, and after the people of Min,
nesota had been called upon by congress
to organize state government, for ad-
mission into the Union thrust itself in.
by way of an extra session, before the
constitutional convention could be as
sembled and, after creating batch of
corporations for the benefit Of their own
members and other favorites; not only
gave away to certain favorite railroad
companies, the munifcent land grant
which Congress had made, but actually
accompanied the gilt, with a perpetual
exemption from all taxation upon any Of
their property, for a paltry three per
cent. upon their gross earnings or re-
ceipts. Could anything be more absurd
ly impudent than this attempt of th
mere creature of Congress, to control or
cmbarrass the future State in regard to
80 vital and fundamental an attribute OF
| its sovereignty, as that Of taxation?
Why it is plain to the dullest compre-
hension that il these companies could be
relieved from taxation to any extent.
they could be altogether exempted and
that if this Legislature had the, power to
exempt this class of property beyond
remedy by the future state, it could,
have perpetually exempted the property
of every member of the Legislature and
OF all its favorites. Such i proposition
is too ridiculous to merit retutation, and
yet it is the foundation of this absurd
decision. .tf.
But the ground upon which this de-
| sion is based is the most remarkable of
| all 1t is deliberately stated in the opin-
ion of the court, that this Territoritorial
legislation amour ed to a contract with
these railroad Companies that the con-
sideration, moving from the companies
TO support this contract, was their i'm
piled promise to build aud complete the
roads arising from the mere acceptance
of their charters, and that this contract
was protected by the constitution of the
United States against any act of the iu-
ture State.
Does not Judge Gilfillan, and in fact
every one else whose attention has been
called To the subject know, that all but
one OF these laud grant companies had
| previously been chartered, and that IL
this implied promise to build the roads
amounted to anything, these prior char
tered roads We're already bound to do
the very thing, as Il consideration for the
special privileges granted by their char
ters, which the court refers to as the
consideration Tor their qualified exemp-
ton from taxationa Ii we hold a mans note
| for thousand dollars which is due. will
any Intelligent court in christendom
l...i.l H.
| given, to do or not to do any particular
| act or thing. upon the sole consideration
| that he will pay the debt which lie al
ready owes to usg And what isthis i'm
| piled promise to build the roads, Ca
| promise too which the state has no means
Of eniorcing,) but promise to do what
| these corporations were already bound
| to do? Yet this is the sole considera-
| ton to sustain this alleged contract.
La all the contracts there must Of ne
cessity be parties capable OF contracting.
/ The subject of the contract must be one
about which a legal and valid contract
can b. made-and it must be mutual
and supported by sufficient consider
alton; it is only such as these that the
| Federal Constitution protects. Here,
however the Territorial Legislature had
no power to bid the sovereign State.
Such power as it had was exhausted bv
the previous sixty days session and
there was no authority for calling an
extra session. The subject of this con-
tract. to-wit, the yielding or the modi-
4 fi.A.ion OF the sovereign power Of taxa
4 lion to the prejudice OF its successors.
was wholly beyond its powers, in any
II a 81 A. n
port it. was an implied promise on the
part Of these companies to do what they
were already under legal obligation to
do and perform. Moreover the succeed
ing constitutional convention, which
had the whole subject before it, and
under its control, affirmed and continued
only such previous Legislation as vas
not Inconsistent Ostttlse stzte constitution.
The convention might have adopted
with this restriction the laws Of any
other state, AMI surely then no one would
have claimed that any law inconsistent
. with the constitution was in force.
Who ever heard OF . court in this age
of the world, in any civilized country,
sustaining the contract Of a man to sur.
, render to another his right to personal
liberty or any other inalienable right:
: And why should Legislature, evel
: when representing the sovereignty, bt
: able to bind its successors in perpetuitv
by cession to its own subjects Of anv d
: its inherent ard sovereign powers? Il
would have been far less obnoxious foI
the Territorial Legislature To have con
ceded to these companies forever thu
right to select the executive or iudiciar3
of the state. 1t is not such contracts a
these that the clause in the Federal Con
stitution. sgains. impairing the obliga
+ ton OF contracts was designed to pro
!, tect.
=