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

OuC CuIS uuCy Was WHOLLY 1lcSlcCIeu. Liz
lands and road-bed and franchises which it
held for it's indemnity were granted by it to
existing companies free and clear, and the
result has been the development Of our rail-
Way system to it's present proportions.
IF this consideration is not a sufficient
answer to the objection, it is sufficient that
the State acted under this amendment, con-
tracted under it, received securities under
it, foreclosed under it, is now enjoying bene-
fits under it, and should be estOpped from
denying obligations under it, except upon
terms of rendering satisfaction from what
it received"
Extracts giving the substance of the de-
cisions Of the courts upon the legal questions
involved, are correctly copied in the late
annual message of Governor Pillsbury,
which very clearly presents the moral and
legal propositions involved.
The Governor says:
IL regard it as the first duty of an
Executive to guard with Jealous care the
good name of the commonwealth whose
sacred interests are committed to his charge !;
and l can therefore suffer no suitable &C.
caslOn to pass without renewing an earnest
injunction for the performance OF a duty
the neglect of which constantly prejudices
our standing among the reputable States Of
the Union"
1.-The reiterated verdict upon this subject,
cOnverging in its conclusions both the high
est adjudication and the deepest moral and
religious convictions, seems to me to be so
conclusive as to leave little or no room for
an honest difference of opinion. But, in
order to dispel any possible doubt respect
ing the legal aspect of the question, I pre-
sent a summary of the legal recognition of
the validity of the bonds, by implication,
precedent and express decisions of the high
est judicial tribunals.
"However it may have been with individu-
al and party action respecting a recognition
frmed that the State herself, acting in her
strictly sovereign capacity and through her
legally constituted authorities, has at least
by strong implication uniformly affirmed
the validity of these bonds without deduc-
ton for fanciful or imaginary equities. Her
action in Obstructing the actual liquidation
of the bonds is itself a confession of their
validity, since if they were invalid that fact
alone would be conclusive against their pay
ment. She again affirmed their validity when,
instead of relying upon the forfeiture clause
of the constitutional amendment for remedy,
she elected to foreelose the mortgage securing
the bonds. She again implied their validity
when she refused power in 1860 to compel
certain banks holding the bonds as security
for circulating notes, to make good the de-
felt resulting from their depreciation. The
validity of the bonds was again implied when
in 1860 the State authorities refused to abate
taxes upon them on the ground of their
questionable validity, and she has repeatedly
implied their validity by taxing them at
their face.
"But we need not rely upon implied or in
direct support of the validity of these bonds.
The courts have repeatedly affirmed this in
express terms. The validity of the fore
closures of the instruments securing the
bonds, and of the titles of the present compa-
MES based thereon, was sustained by the
Supreme Court of this State in the case of
Parcher against the First Division of St.
Paul and Pacific Railroad Company Q4th
MINI. Rep, page 297) and a long line of
decisions with which our reports are filled.
If these bonds were void, the titles resting
upon them would be worthless.
"Upon a denial of the validity of the bonds
made upon the ground of the illegal incOn-
gruity Of a State Legislature uniting with
a Territorial Governor in the passage of the
bond measure, Judge Dillon, of the United
States Circuit Court, disposed of the ques-
ton in the following energetic language:
"'That the bonds held by the plaintiff are the
legal obligations Of the State, and binding upon
it in law, honor and justice, l have no doubt.
Indeed, counsel have not seriously questioned
that these bonds were valid. They were issued
pursuant to an amendment to the Constitution
Of the State, adopted by a popular vote Of about
thirty-fve thousand for, to eight Thousand
against; have been repeatedly recognized as
valid by subsequent legislation Of the State, and
by the foreclosure proceedings. Under these
circumstances, the fact that it does not appear
that the acting Governor of the State signed the
bill providing for submission to the people of the
of no consequence. In the amendment to the
Constitution, the faith and credit of the State
are pledged for the payment of the interest and
the redemption of the principal of the bonds.
They are signed by the Governor, and bear upon
their face the seal of the State. They were is
sued to the plaintiff and others for grading and
work actually done upon the roads, at the rate
specified in the constitutional amendment and
the State obtained the benefit of the securities
it took for its Naturalization, and regranted the
property it acquired, free from all liens, to the
present companies. Under these circumstances,
if the State were suable in the courts, there can
be no doubt that the bonds would be legally en-
forcible against it. Justice and honor alike re
quire the State to recognize these bonds as bind.
ing upon it, and in the end the court cannot
doubt that the people of the State will 50 ordain.
A State with such a future before it as the State
of Minnesota, ann0t afford to bear the Odium
of reputation, and if there we're NJ other diff
gested one that his bonds are invalid, he will be
entitled to the relief demanded
'EIt has been intimated by certain news
papers that the distinguished jurist who
delivered this opinion, went outside the
record tO read the State q 1QctnrA mon hnr