Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1879-03-01
FREEDOM OF TEE MISSISSIPPI,

The GLOBE presumes that Col. Hicks, of
the Hennepin delegation, represents the
wishes of his constituents in his conduct in
the House of Representatives and for that
reason does not blame him for the course he
pursued yesterday in opposing the very
reasonable bill of the Mississippi River
Boom company to be allowed to receive logs
passing over the Falls of St. Anthony with
out being compelled to pay toll to the Min
neapolis corporation which would render the
manufacture of lumber at this point at fair
profit practically impossible. We say we
do not blame Col. Hicks for his course, but
in this remark we presume that he is rep
resentative of a locality simply, not of the
State of Minnesota OR of it's best interests
BY this we do not wish to be committed to
the assertion that any man has the right or
that it is his duty to seek to advance the in
terests of the locality from which he halls at
the expense or to the detriment of the rest
of the State.
Col. Hicks factious opposition to three
measures obviously intended to benefit the
State-the release of the swamp lands from
the Soldiers Orphans Home, the reorgani-
cation of the insane asylum, and the boom
project-shows that he is the representative
Of locality, not of the State. He was wrong
in each of his positions-so intensely parti-
san and biased that he alienated those who
might otherwise have supported him. AS to
the latter project he was so unreasonable as
to provoke ridicule. He assumed to say that
corporation existing at Minneapolis had
the right to exact toll upon all logs or other
products that should pass down the river to
St. Paul or points below. We believe Col.
Hicks is lawyer, and he cannot, there
fore, be ignorant of the fact that in
the ordinance of 1887, by which the State
of Virginia granted the Mississippi valley
to the United States, it was expressly pro-
vided that the Mississippi river should be
forever free to every citizen Of this and
every other government. Nor can he be
ignorant of the fact that, though we may
amend or abrogate laws or constitutions,
this ordinance can neither be altered, amend
ed or repealed. Nor can Col. Hicks, if he is
lawyer of any research, have failed to dis
cover in the constitution of the State of
Minnesota, provision relating to the rivers
and waters of the State, including the Mis-
sisippi river, which prescribes that 'ssaid
rivers and waters and navigable waters lead
ing into the same, shall be common high
ways, and foreuer free, as we'll to the inhab-
itants of said State as to other citizens of
the United States, ac1thout a1ay tao, duty,
import or toll therefor.'' Perha ps Col.
Hicks knows these facts, and knows that no
effort of his can alter the ordinance of 1887
or the constitution of the State. If he does
not know these things he has read the laws
of his country very imperfectly. If he does
not know them he is very poor lawyer,
and not at all qualified to argue upon any
such question. 1.-The does know them, his
arguments of yesterday were simply dema-
gogical.
The whole purpose of the bill under de-
bate was to prevent the possibility of long,
tedious and perhaps expensive lawsuit. 10
oppose such bill is simply to display spite
that is unworthy of representative in the
legislature with any pretentions to decency
or fair-mindedness. The Minneapolis boom
company know they have no legal right to
tax logs passing over the falls, but in order
to hamper and embarrass the St. Paul boom
company, they will levy that toll and attempt
to collect it, This will involve a lawsuit, of
course, of the results of which there can be
no doubt, but it would nevertheless be an
noying. The bill now before the House will
preclude the possibility Of such suit, while
adding nothing to the profits of the st. Paul
boom company nor take anything from the
profits of the Minneapolis company.