The anti-monopolist. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1874-1878, 1877-01-11

rnon the forfeiture clause OF the constitution |
al amendment for remedy, she elected to fore |
close the mortgage securing the bonds; She
again implied their validity when she re- /!
fused power, in 1860, to com pei certain banks
holding the bonds as secur ity TOR circulating
notes. to make good the de hcit 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 val
idity, and she has repeatedly Implied ~ their
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 foreclos-
ures of the instruments securing the bonds
and of the titles OF the present companies
based therein, were sustained by the Supreme
Court of this State in the case of Parcher
against the First Division OF the st. Paul
Pacific Rail Road Company (14th Mimi. Rep.
page 297), and long line OF decisions with
which our reports are filed. 1t these bonds
were void the titles resting upon them would
he worthless.
Upon denial of the validity of the bonds,
made upon the ground OF the illegal incon-
| gruity Of State legislature uniting with
| Territorial governor, in the passage OF the
bond measure, Judge Dillon, in the United
States Circuit Court, disposed OF the question
| in the following energetic language:
"That the bonds held by the plalntlh are
the legal obligations of the State and binding
upon It in law, honor, and justice have no
| doubt; indeed counsel have not seriously
questioned that these bonds were not valid.
They were issued pursuant to an amendment
to the Con stitution OF the State, adopted Dy
popular vote OF about thirty-fve thousand
for, to Gig bit thousand against, have been re-
peatedly recognized as valid by subsequent
legisl alton OF the State and by the foreclosure
proceedings. Urder these circumstances the
TACT that it does not appear the acting Govern
or of the State signed the bill provldlng lor
the submission to the people OF the loan
amendment to the constitution is matter 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 issued to the plaintiff and others
, for grading and work actually done upon
. the roads ut the rate specified in the cOnstitu-
: toanl amendment; and the State obtained the
benefit of the securities it took tor it's lndem-
MITIGATION and re-granted the property 1t &C
CURED ire. from all liens 10 the pfesen! COLI
I panies. Under these circumstances II the
9 State were suable in the courts there can De
. no doubt that the bonds would be legally en-
4 torcable against it. Justice and honor alike re-
. quire the State to recognize these bonds as
binding upon it, and in the end the court cal
: not doubt that the people OF the State Will s J!
!, ordain. A State with such future before Il
a as the State OF Minnesota can not afford tt
n bear the odium of reputation. And II there
. | were no other difficulties in the plalntln
. way except the suggested one that his bond:
! are Invalid, he will be entitled to the relic
demanded"
: Il has been intimated by certain newspaper
! that the distinguished jurist who delivered
n this opinion, went outside the record to reat
% the State q lecture upon her duties IN tn
n premises; careful examination OF the recort
=. will, it is believed, show that this charge l
st unjust; but however this may be. it Will b
NJ conceded that the highest tribunal IN tn
=, land. as at present constituted, has estab
!. lished no precedent which would justify sue
charge The case having been decide
ut against the plaintiff in the circuit court, n
4 plaintiff promptly took an appeal to the Su
10 preme Court OF the United States.
w The question OF the constitutionality OF tn
~ concurrent resolutions of the State Leglsls
i ture of 1860 torbidding the payment OF tn
40 bonds without an affirmative vote OF the pee
q pie, coming directly before the United State
.. Supreme Court, such concurrent resolution
~, were pronounced void because in violation
M the contract which the State had made wit
n the old companies.
ri In this state OF the case the court decided
follows:
.sThe faith of the State, solemnly pledge
- for the payment OF both principal and int
W est. has never been kept. So tar from kee]
~. ~ ing it the State as early as November lo6
~ -, adopted an amendment to its constitute
" v prohibiting any law which levied tax
r. made other provision for such payment tai
nS ing effect until the same had been submlttt
eu to vote of the people and been adopted
"a them. This prohibition, ifnot . violation
y the States pledge, conflicts with us sp,r
n. The bonds issued are valid obligations. -
VI State is bound by every consideration OF go'
Gu faith to pay them. Were she amenable
"a the tribunals of the country as private
81 dividua.s are, no court OF justice Juld VIII
~ hold its judgment against her in an acti
ha. tor their enforcement"
hat "The State was primarily liable to the bon
IL. holders and it was only between her and
10 companies that the relation OF principal a
%. surety existed 1t may be doubted whett
a ~. the bondholders could call upon the COZ
-. pany at any event"
rec 1t has been intimated that these decisio
uoi were obtained by collision between the plal
a tiff and the companies to obtain q decls1
III against the State the character OF the cou
eu sci engaged as we'll as that. OF the tribunals
olo lore whom the cases were pending forbid So
=; q suspicion and il sufficient answer TO So
go an insinuation.
the LITIGATION surely comes with q bad gr
from State which has refused repeated IN
our tations to submit her pretended defences
lion the scrutiny of the courts, and wrapping
ted mantle OF her sovereignty around her, has
the ways carefully avoided all investigation
Ids. plaintiff, it may be supposed, could have b
e OF only too willing to have made her party,
we'd t been possible.
bli- In the case of Farnsworth vs. the Minnie
I'd ia & Pacific Rail Road Company trial,
ON Court said, 1.-THE adoption OF the constitute
the amendment OF 1860, certainly had the ei
e OF to impair the value of the bonds oil the st,
but it is the holders ofthese bonds who
Ex- the right to complain OF this proceeding !;
,ood the company nor the trustees under the
in in suit The holders OF those bonds loo
can in the first instance to the State tor payne
pass the State was primarily liable to them
j Tor they were therefore injuriously affected by
t of amendment"
ding 1t is difficult to see why these decisi
do no. efectually dispel the clouds and N
oject which have so long developed the sub
hest leaving the golden line OF duty stretching
re- clear and distinct before the representa-
con- of the people, and the State of Minnesota 4
n an hereafter stand dumb when questioned
er TO why she does not wslk by it.
legal With such unmistakable and impers
ry OF commands from the voice OF law, equity
the honor, is the question not reduced to
press simple one of our willingness to pay an he
5 iebtg And can our young State with so
dual n1.ure-as n .,emter of the sisterhOod in