Mower County transcript. [volume] (Lansing, Minn.) 1868-1915, 1877-05-10

V"0 1SOVO 90 OoAAy 40 4NOVCu4UC4 xOOVs AUOpteO Ill
amendment to its constitution prohibiting any
law which levied a tax or made other provision
for such payment from taking effect, until the
same had been submitted to a vote of the people
and been adopted by them. This prohibition,
it not a violation of the States pledge, conflicts
with its spirit. The bonds issued are valid OBJ
legations. The State is bound by every con-
sideration Of good faith, to pay them Were
she amenable to the tribunals of the country as
private individuals are, no court of justice would
withhold its judgment against her in an action
for their enforcement.
"'The State was primarily liable to the bond
holders and it was only between her and the
surety existed. 1t may be doubted whether the
bondholders could call upon the company in any
event.
sit has been intimated that these decisions
were obtained by collision between the
plaintiff and the companies to obtain a de-
cision against the State. The character of
the counsel engaged, as we'll as that of the
tribunals before whom the cases were pend
ing, forbid such a suspicion, and is a suf-
ticient answer to such an i%nsinuation.
"The complaint that she was not a party
to the litigation surely comes with bad grace
from a State which has refused repeated in
yitations to submit her pretended defences
to the scrutiny of the courts, and, wrapping
the mantle of her sovereignty around her,
has always carefully avoided all investiga-
ton. The plaintiff, it may be supposed,
would have been only too willing to have
made her a party, had it been possible.
"In the case of F%arnsworth vs.. the Min
nesota & Pacific Railroad Company ct al,
the court said:
"'The adoption of the constitutional amend
the value of the bonds of the State but it is
the holders of those bonds who had the right to
complain of this proceeding, not the company
nor the trustees under the deed in suit. The
holders of those bonds looked in the first in
stance to the State for payment. The State was
primarily liable to them, and they were there
fore injuriously affected by the amendment
cit is difficult to see why these decisions
do not effectually dispel the clouds and mists
which have 50 long enveloped the subject,
leaving the golden line of duty stretching
out clear and distinct before the representa-
tives Of the people, and the State Of Min
nesOta must hereafter stand dumb when
questioned as to why she does not walk by it.
with such unmistakable and imperative
commands from the voice of law, equity, and
honor, is the question not reduced to the
simple n Of our willingness to pay an honest
debit"
It is assumed that there is a legal or at
least an equitable and moral ground of de-
fence or lawful excuse for the non-payment
of the full amount the State agreed and
bound itself to pay because it is said the
price allowed by the companies and paid in
these bonds for grading was so high and dis
proportionate to the actual cash cost, that
this difference should be abated in settling
for or adjusting the bonds, and that it is
proper so to scale the bonds so delivered in
paying for such grading. This is all well
enough if the parties holding the bonds are
willing SO to do. But in a legal point of
view, as the State absolutely and without
condition agreed to deliver to the. respective
companies $4,000 per mile in bonds for each
mile Of graded road as fast as each section
of ten miles should be graded, it is difficult
in law or common sense to see how the State
is injured because the companies paid over
to the contractors all they were to get per
mile from the State.
If an individual, for a like consideration
as that received by the State, had agreed to
pay, in his own notes or bonds, $4,000 per
mile to a person agreeing to grade and
bridge n of these lines of railroad, and
when he had examined the work as provided
for, and accepted it, and have delivered his
notes, as he agreed to do, could such an II
be allowedto say, that because the contractor
had got the work done for less than what was
agreed to be paid for it, that he was legally
absolved from paying his notes, or that the
facts above stated constitute a legal defense
when sued on his notes I should say not.
If the contractor in either case had actually
lost money by an unexpected increase Of cost,
and had therefore lost money at the con-
tracted price, could the employers have been
required to make up the loss? No ; the
State would have stood upon her contract
if contractors had lost money, and they
would have been required to live no to and
perform their part of the bargain. If the
companies paid out more of the bonds they
were to get as the work of grading pro-
crossed than they need to have done, what
right has the State to complain ?
This proposition, if not tenable so far AS
the bonds are concerned that are held by the
contractors, it is, of course, absurd to claim
that innocent holders who have purchased
bonds upon the faith of the representations
made by the State upon The face of the
bonds, are not entitled to the full amount
so promised, principal and interest. Inthis