The anti-monopolist., 1875-07-26
ST. PAUL. MINNESOTA. MONDAY, JULY &c, 1875

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 9TH of July
Convention 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
very early date,-atan unprecedented
ly early date,-in the hope of securing
thereby that gentleman's nomination.
Surely no fair-minded man, and Mr..
Young is such,-wil 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: Il.
NJ. Burchard, G. X. Cleveland, VIM.
Brown, Prot c. H. Roberts, c. c. Will
son, John Cornwell, Henry POSTER, L.
II. Griffin, Isaac Chrlstlieb. Gordon
Jackins, VIM. Blaisdell, E. J. Hodgson.
and many others. The very name
selected Democratic Republican" testi-
fled 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 unwilling.
ly, does Hon. Lafayette Emmett grave
injustice He forgets that one year age
Judge Emmett made the canvass O
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 o
the Grange vote, and would have beer
sustained by Mr. Young himself if he
had lived in that county and had heart
his speeches.
Judge Emmett did not discourage The
exercise of the power of the people ''tt
restrain The railroad companies" in a let
ter published in january last in this pa
per. On the contrary he sought t
point out the true legal remedy. HI
argued, 1--WE quote his words):
But, some aggrieved farmer or Granger ma
ask, "have the Legislature no power in tn
premises, Can it do nothing to relieve us from
, what We regard as oppressive charges" Tn
L. gislature am satisfied, can do much.
: It can establish what shall be deemed IN q
courts prima facie reasonable rates; and afh
such penalties for extortiate rates that are ur
reasonable as will deter the roads from experi
menting in that direction, except when the
are clearly in the right.
Il can provide, when these Legislative rate
= are exceeded, for legally adiudicating th
a question. at the public expense. Instead Of I'll
: individual aggrieved, and throw the who
burden Of proof o.. the railroad companies
In other words, Judge Emmett held
A and we think properly. that if a sta,
!. and corporation are parties to a cor
: tract and they differ as 10 its construction
neither party could absolutely cons;ru
it for the other but they must have r,
course TO the courts IT law to adjudicat
;. between them, Just as John Jones an
John Smith do when they quarrel ovs
/. the sale of horse But the state in i
9 sovereign capacity has a right to pr,
{ scribe the rules OF practice in the cour
J of the State, and therefore has 3 rigl
q to say that certain rates of transport
> ton shall be priVsa Tacie .'reasonab
rates" thus throwing the burden
proof upon the corporations TO conviaC
4 the jury that they are MT reasonabl
# This. in our Judgment, is an uncontr
!. vertib.e position. and We embodied it
N our proposed law for the regulation
il railroads winter before last
d Again; Mr.. Young assails Jude
e Emmett for having granted writ
y mandamus to compel Gov. Sibley
|. issue the old swindling FIVE million bono
# in 1858 But he forgets that the duty
) a court is to eArorce the law, not to max
r or repeal it. There is no doubt that Ill
der that fraudulent amendment to Il
= constitution the companies were entitle,
: legally. to receive those bonds Bg
r Gov. Sibley. representing co-ordina'
+ branch of the government of equal a,
? thority. was under no obligation to ODE
a the mandate of the court Ii took pc
) iitical revolution. however. and ne,