The anti-monopolist. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1874-1878, 1875-07-26

proved recreant to the views represented
by that law? On the contrary, has he
not, time and again, from the stump,
sustained and reinforced the doctrine OF
the right and duty of the Legislature to
control the corporations of the State in
the interest of the people? Mr.. Young
asks the question, why the 7th of July
Cony ention was called? Our own desire
was that no convention should be held
until full conference had been had with
the Anti-Monopoly element; but it is
well known that the friends of Mr.. Fisher
secured the holding of the convention at
a very early date,-atan unprecedented
ly early date,-in the hope of securing
thereby that gentleman's nomination.
Surely no fair-minded man, and MIR.
Young is such,-will hold Mr.. Buell. or
the rest of the ticket answerable for that
act.
Mr.. Young asks the question whether
the ticket are Democrats or Liberals.
The Convention really represented the
Opposition to the Republican party.
Messrs. Durant. Jones. and Schetfer,
three of the candidates nominated, were
all formerly Republicans. Among the
delegates we remember the names of
the following gentlemen who formerly
acted with the Republican party: II.
NJ. Burchard, G. X. Cleveland, VIM.
Brown, Prot. G. H. Roberts, c. c. Will
son, John Cornwell, Henry POSTER, l..
H.. Griffin, Isaac Christlieb, Gordon
Jackins, VIM. Blaisdell, E. j. Hodgson.
and many others. The very name
selected Democratic Republican" testi-
fed to the composite nature of the con-
vention: it is only Objectionable on the
ground that it embraces too much.
We are certain Mr.. Young unwitting-
ly, does Hon. Lafayette Emmett grave
injustice. He forgets that one year ago
Judge Emmett made the canvass OF
Rice County. and a brilliant canvass too,
as candidate for the legislature, on the
distinctive issue of the power of the
State to control the corporations of the
State. He was supported by the bulk OF
the Grange vote, and would have been
sustained by Mr.. Young himself if he
had lived in that county and had heard
his speeches.
Judge Emmett did not discourage the
exercise of the power of the people ''to
restrain The railroad companies" in a let
ter published in January last in this pa
per. On the contrary he sought to
point out the true legal remedy. He
argued, 1--WE quote his words):
| But, some aggrieyed farmer or Granger may
ask, "have the Legislature no power in thu
premisess Can it do nothing to relieve US from
| what we regard as oppressive chargess" Th'
Legislature lam satisfied, can do much.
II can establish what shall be deemed in al
courts prima facie reasonable rates; and aft,
such penalties for extortiate rates that are un
reasonable as will deter the roads from expert
menting in that direction, except when the,
are clearly in the right.
/ 1t can provide, when these Legislative rate
are exceeded, for legally adjndicating tn
question, at the public expense, instead Of tn
burden Of proof o. the railroad companies.
| In other words, Judge Emmett held
and we think properly. that if stat
and corporation are parties to con
tract and they differ as 10 its construction
neither party could absolutely cons,ru
it for the other. but they must have n
course to the courts Of law to adiudicat
between them, just rs John Jones an
John Smith do when they quarrel owe
the sale Of horse. But the state in i,
, sovereign capacity has a right to pre-
scribe the rules OF practice in the cour,
of the State, and therefore has a rigf
to say that certain rates of transport:
ton shall be prima facie "reasonabl
rates. thus throwing the burden .
proof upon the corporations to convine
the jury that they are not reasonabl,
1 xHiS, III ONt bu1aAi~Ats ID Au uuCtsusiS
vertibie position, and We embodied it
our proposed law for the regulation
/ railroads winter before last
II Again; Mr.. Young assails Jude
, Emmett for having granted a writ /,
mandamus to compel Gov. Sibley /,
issue the old swindling five million bond
+ in 1858. But he forgets thai the duty
a court is to eAforce the law, not to max
: or repeal it. There is no doubt that u
der that fraudulent amendment to th
constitution the companies were entitled
legally. to receive those bonds. Bt
Gov. Slbley, representing co-ordinat
branch Of the government Of equal au
thority, was under no obligation to ODE
the mandate of the court. 1t took pa
htical revolution, however. and . ne,