The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1881-09-18

the u conSPthfnS f"~e
lows: ~.
.Tbe sapremc Court Of Minnesota has
,acensIv made ; decision for when u Is ea-
f,,,e6 10 universal thanks. ThSt Siaie con-
,r.ctsd 4 debt some twenty-five years sgo
and issued is bonds therefor. oevsotuSl
lV. after paying interest thereon LOT : lev
wears. a technical objection 10 tne taiulsy
az tie bonds was discoveries ahu pa3m
y 1890, was stopped. There was never
- ser,nvs difficulty a. TO the merits OF the
dsst a was Justly and honestly due, Du.
the sseakness which ipduces men 20 avolu
bsnosi pavment upon 8 legal quibDie "as
soo s,rong in the then infant state, anu
Minnesota was permitted 10 take a pace
among the repudiaiiug states. By way =.
cnnehino this reputation an amenum0n'
yVas made 10 the State Constitution PIV
limiting any legislation lookipg 20 TUG 49,
Tnent ~ fhe debt unless The law TOT 'h't
n,rnose was submitted 10 a vote OF rue
reonle aud was approved by them.
:. Some wears later a bill authorizing ny
ra.men, ~ these bonds at toe ressonso's
ierms offered by the holders vas suom'teV
10 4 vote OF The people, ana t9e VI. vas
voted Town. At the last session OF tns
Lerislafure the creditors, VINO nave oeeom'
IMPOVERISHED by the BAD taito Oh tae o.",
offered 10 accept what would De aDout "
nrr cent. OF the debt. and the Legislature
nssseJ a law submitting the acceptance OF
th,s Offer 10 O vote Of the people, SUBJECTS
tavvever. 10 n preIiminsry submission TO
the eonrts Of the question whether TINS laW'
even II ratified by q vote Of the people,
would be constitutional.
"The court has maniully ana OfaNeiy
met this question. 1t has decided tbat u
issuing the bonds the State bad eDtefed into
a contract 10 pay them according 10 ther
fenor. and that the amendment TO the STATE
CONSTITUTION was in violation OF Tue Ma
ttooal Constitution, which prohibits any
impajrment ~ contracts, and was, lheIe.
fore. yoid, The constitutional amendment
which made any law providing Tor tne pay
ment Of these bonds dependent on IT'S pp
proyal by vote OF the PEOPLE was therefore
unconstitutional"
That's Just what would be decided IN a
ease under the RIDDLBBERGgR blll-namely,
that in "issuing her bonds Virginia bad
entered into a contract to pay then accord
ing 10 their ~tenoT,v and therefore that said
bill Is /" in violation Of the national COnsll-
tulioD, which prohibits any impairment OF
contracts, and Is therefore void. "Ine
law which makes any bill providing for The
payment OF these bonds dependent on Us
approval BIZ a vote Of The people is there
fore unconstitutional
The philadelphia Press, q staunch MA
HONE orgpn. and the paper on which +. A.
BURR is emp%Ioyed-the same BURR who
cam to Virginia IN 1880 and tried TO Win
draw The GARFIELD electoral licket IN the
interest Of The MALONE electoral ticket
understands the Minnesota ease. That
journal says:
ain 1857 Minnesota, then a Territory,
II, u6d its bonds TO The amount OF Sz,2f0'OOO
10 promote the construction OF rsllroaos
through is sparsely.seitled lands.
constitutional amendment was adop'eu I'D
1860 pi oviding that any proposition looking
10 the payment OF this debt should first be
submitted 10 The people for apPrOyal.
. Last winter the discouraged creditors
offered TO take 6fty cents on The dollar, and
the Legislature passed law submitting the
acceprapce OF their offer TO a vote OF the
people, subject, however, 10 q preliminary
submission 10 the courts on the question OF
its constitutionsliiy.
"Tbe Supreme Court OF the State has re-
Gently passed upon the question. IL
decides that the amendment to the Stale
Constitution. which says that no law pro-.
riding for the pav1ent Of the railroad
bonds shall take e1fec, until approved 10y
the people, was void as impairing The ooll'
galion OF a contract contrary to the PROFIT
billion Of THE national Constitution. This
decision leaves the way clear for the Legis'
laiure to make provision Tor the payment OF
the debt whenever it shall summon up sur
fcient virtue TO do So"
The Wing says:
at Is simply preposterous TO deduce
from thai judgment the principle that legis'
latures may not Of their own accord submit
TO the vote OF the people anything they
choose which is not 10 itself uneonstitu-
~tional."
just so: " anything which ls not in Itself
unconstitutional" But that's the very
point. The RIDDLEBERGER bill Is in itself
unconstitutional. It's authors are afraid 10
allow Il 70 be passed upon by the Supreme
Court Of Appeals. They have, therefore,
inserted in It an unconstitutional provision
vaInly attempting to deprive that high
tribunal Of its constitutional jurisdiction.
We doubt il there is even a ReS iusteI
Juukc III fnklulA WHu WOutA wv
pronounce the R~IDDLEBERGER bill uncon'
stiutionai If II were argued before him and
he were compelled TO decide The case. The
Reputation Of a. per cent. Of the eonso
bends and 80 per cent. OF the peeIers is Ger
tainly unconstitutional. There can be nc
doubt upon tins point. These unconstitu'
tionai provisions are TO be submitted 10 q
vote OF the people. Clearly the MinneSots
decision covers the case. There is no room
for doubt.
The Wig says:
"Curious 20 say, the Minnesota decision
practically sasiaius the complete repudia'
ton OF the bonds"
The Wig is entirely wrong. The court
decided. on the contrary, as follows 1--WE
quote the Chicago Times:
"First, that the constitutional amend
ment OF 1860 requiring the question OF The
payment Of the railroad bonds to be sub
mitted TO the people > : is void because
II impairS The obligation Of the contract be-
s,rsen the State and the bondhoiderS."
Whist could be planners Instead OF sus-
tanning .'the complete reputation Of the
bonds,D the decision protects those bonds
because they constitute a "contract be-
tween the State and the bondholders." The
Times also says:
.The decision . . is regarded as a
victory for the debt-paying forty-seyen."
All the Journals 10 the United States
which have spoken OF the ease, have, SO
iar as their articles have come under our
notice, treated the decision as one mani