Mower County transcript. [volume] (Lansing, Minn.) 1868-1915, 1877-05-03

THURSDAY MORNING, MAY 3, 1877.
A. A. HARDWOOD. Editor l. Proprietor
! the STATE RAILROAD BONps.
The few men who make an active OPP
position 10 the proposed plan of adjusting
the bond NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. the want OF
facts and sound arguments to base their
opposition upon, resort 10 ra1lery and
blackguardi>n,., One Of two things is
(suc. Tina, claim should be liquidatcd or
Il should not be. Now how are honest
voters land The masses are honesty to de-
eide: Manifes,ly, by finding out tho
truth Of the case The decision of the
pending question will turn upon tho un-
Outstanding which the people have Of the
facts involved, and unless we mistake, the
Aempcr of the public mind is in no mood
10 bear trifling. The people Will not
regard with favor any n,aa WHO seeks to
hide the truth with specious argument,
or TO lessen lis force by resort to ridiculc.
It 10 = TACT that twenty years ago this
State had less than quarter million popu-
lation, with Il small area OF her soil under
cultivation, and no taciliticsf for transport
ing except her nayigablc streams. She
WAS without commercial centres, manu-,
featuring dcpots, and without capital, OK:
cert the brains ard the energy OF her few
people. She needed railroads, not more
TO iranSpor, her products than 10 bring in
settlcrs-thc raw material out Of which
young commonwealths are constructed.
She was poor, and like many a poor MAN
WHO hiss capacity and pluck, without the
cash to make them available, she encum
bcred herself for the purpose Of increas.
ing her facilities for doing business. She
losucd her credit to certain parties to aid
in the construction Of railroads which
were indispensable to her welfare. The
roads were built, the State has increased
vastly, almost miraculously in population
In cultivated area and in wealth, and to-
day she rauks second to none Of her Sis
icrs in any Of those characteristics which
indicate true greatness, with the sole cx-
ccption that she has thus far practically
repudiatcd the debt by the means Of
which she has been enabled IT, obtain her
present position Of cminencc and pros.
pcrity. In her case il is the old story of
ingrat;.udc repeated. Having survived
6he period OF her poverty and helplcssness,
shall she tcru her back upon those by
whose assistance size was enabled 10 pros.
per: Honcs} men will hesitate to make her
d SO base an act II is said that "lhe State is
not technically liable to pay those bonds"
That is bad assertion, aud which is
wholly untrue. Ifobj ectious mean by it
shat the claim cannot be enforced simply
because the State throws herself upon her
sovereignty, and refuses to answer in
court, VIC cannot dcspute them, III other
words, if it is mcnt by the assertion that
the State is not liabl--not because she
does not owe, but because she wont pay,
We do not question the fact but We deny
that there is any honesty in such state
mcnt. She is, herself, the supreme and
infallible Judge of all questions Of dispute
arising between herself and any one of
her citizens. From her decision there
can be no appeal. Ought she not there
fore TO decide fairly: Man,tcstly, yes.
She guaranteed the payment of,hc bonds
Yes. 8he was induced thereto by the
belief that the benefits to accrue from the
proposed Improvements fully justified the
act? Yes. Fearing that the enterprise
might fer some unforeseen reason fail,
she Unidentified herself against loss
Xes. When it became evident that the
orig,na! contractors could not fulfill &C
cording to the terms stipulated, she took
possession Of !:c: indemnity, did she no! :
Yes. We are told however, at this point,
that there was fraud practiccd upon the
State. All! Then why did not the State
repud;atc as soon as she discovered the
fraud, if she intended to repudiate at all ?
The fact is the State was made to believe
that tho roads in aid Of which the bonds
were given, would not only pay running
expenses, but that they woul'l, in short
time, yield dividends sufficient to cover
the cost of construction and equipment.
That theory, although honestly enter
taiucd, vas false one, but does its falsity
furnish any ground upon which the
State may honestly refuse to meet the oh
LEGATION which it incurred? WE THINK
NOT. A man takes farm and in con-
sjdcra,icn of the use Of it for one year,
promises to fence it. He sows his seed,
but the season Is unpropitlous, his crop
10 b|ightcd,-his seed and his labor are
lost; but docs that circumstance relieve
him from the duty Of building the fence
according to agreement: Every man
will say,-no, aud in doing SO, he will
render judgment against The State on the
bond question. Now suppose that the
owner of the land, recognizing the
hardship Of a strict iulfillinent on the
part of his tenant, comes forward and says
4UAS A"S OSCu " pl'ut"oAS ONSAASS" ava
neither of US but perhaps it hes affected
sou more unfavorably than it has me,
hence, propose TO lessen your loss by an
adjustment which will make me to share
1t with YOU" That is just what the bond
holders now propose. They soy, "you
formed your judgement Of the original
transaction upon premises which proved
- be unsound. That was your misfor:
txnc, for thereby you became morally
bound 10 pay from your own treasury
bonds, which you expected wonld be paid
BY private corporations. Believing that
they would be paid by somebody, We
purchased them, but not in all cases. al
their face value, hence, VIC have not lost
the full amount which they represent
We will now make an equitable d,strlbu