, 1881-09-26
MINNESOTA.
Gov. Pj|lsbury Calls an Extra
Session Of the Leg
islaturo.
4 Now Proposition to Be Submitted by
tho Holders Of tile lecpuli-
ntcd bonds.
Decision by tho Supreme Court that tho
Legislature Nay Provide for
Their Payment.
Speetal Dttpatch 10 The Chttano 7rfbMne+

1T. lAuIs allhl1.s ioepT. ~l.-tihF. l'lllaDIfy /
has Just called MI extra session uF the Icgis- |
latu1e 10 consider new proposition fur tho
payment Ut tho old Minnesota rnilroad bonds.
This proposition IS III effect n renewal nj tho |
offer on which tho plan Of settlement adopted,
BY the last Legislature WIS tuscd. IL comes
from Selah Chamberlain, Of Cleveland, the
largest holder of the old bonds. fle offers
TO surrender them III exchanRe for now
bonds, to half tho amount Ut tho principal
and Interest, tho HOW bonds 10 beur & per
cont Interest, and run for thirty years. 1t Is
necessary to go back 10 tho Legislature Of
last year to understand how the proposition
comes 10 take this shape. For good many
years the bontlho1dors lave been rcatly 10
settle Upon n basis Ut tlip payment Of one
hnlf their claims. Two separate propositions
for settlement upon this bass have becn SUBJ
mltted to tho people tInller The constitutional
amendment of 1SlW, AnA both were voted
down. An effort WIS made Inst winler to
evade this constitutional provision, which
was held by the best lawyurslo be Of no force,
and which,
HAS s1xcE BEEN 1SvA1tDArEp
by the Supreme Court decision. Tho bill for
tho purpose passed through several stages,
but flnallyassuu,ed this form: It rcclted that
Solah Chamberlain, tho largest holder of tho
bonds, appeared before the Legislature BY
his attorney md offered to accept oile-i,nlf
monav ar nav bonds. ns mi ,lisct,nrur nf
the debt. 1t provided TINT l,o u,,d ut other
bondlloldors so minded might deposit bombs
with tho Auditor Of tie Stato md sIEn MI
agreement 10 accept In exchange new bonds
10 half their value, when tic adjustment WIS
completed by tho State. The now bonds
were 10 bear PET cent interest, to be payn-
u'o IA ~, @n a,"'a' uln' !" '''aau',. ..' VI M.tty
years. rl1en Tie question OF the Legality OF
this mode Of sottement--that Is, of pay
votc IN occort1ance viii tha n,nen,n,c,t NJ
,eso ~ - ha shn.,,,an m @ ~ .,,n W
leN-Was 10 oe saDh''t1ca To tae onpfcmo
Court, OF, If tho SUPREME Court declined 10
act, 10 n special tribunal appointed by the
f;oycrnor. IF thu pInn of set,!ement was
i'ats ,anat h1 t,a ',o,,r,s t,o ;ss,,o ~ ,o.,, w."
IT," .'b", =, wy H., eo" o .,,t,.t.,. ~"
bonds was 10 bo mute fortAwltll. II not,
the proposition was to bo submitted to tic
th.t .Sa o'Icct ~ nj trts vac tn h,lr1 'tI tha
as .o ..a5... ~ .'s ,u,,, u
1..s,,s1, w. u '',,Ms, '1''
n%Iov 0o"a ~ 1""e"' ''''"''' 4"''''''e,' ~ u''
clae IT, ~
w. THE s0rhEME COURT
g. declined to acccnt the duty Imposed upon 1t
by the act Of, the grollnt that the samo
question would bo brought before It iii Its
proper capaclty Ill subsequent l'tlgaltoh, anu
a~i Troa la.rto, "S nna ' y. rh4s ~ .,bun
tv iee r. M xerv r,ua ct
sitting by au application made by n taxpayer
to tic Supreme Court for u writ Of
~ ti,n rrn,,,, that ~, rt .nthnriyi,o Il .vas
I" caM,ict Viii, ti,c rsnsi,t"t,n, mi ~ ,
nrorar Tnih,"tinm of 1,n}si,.,. ,n'ms'r " 'rhia
VIII . scs hromnif r., o,'rsion to ir,h
''nai vns Il, ,oniHH tt,rn", r. ,fora u ia N.
tro,r, nrt wiz ,entn, ,uno tuu nr,,,;"
tare 1H ia,,e,t i,s, ~, fv c,m5 ~, VIZ csIsa ~
the rn!,rt rc'sslarcI IL" ;y.,eEs nnn. Hs wiI In
rnmnn,,tsd X swc.t n,.:a" 5tt, ~ tbn Iouo
et;tmtin'oi n,nnnfI,nnrt ~, ~. ,,o,, IN,
nnn rsinr,'m II" ,vs,im is' .,,,s;fo . ~ ,nv.
ment r Of tde bois to tl,e LeHislatnre, re- VIII, wl
@ v"Me ~ ,.'tmu ',t vi ~ wiuol ,i ~.
S1s snUt", ~ csr,. vr,orv for ts ~ %i's
ny nart@ ~ ~ Il ". n.rfsotlv III ,"rSta"d iho
XII s ~ ~ ~ VIZ fhn ',,,, ,H,.s ~, ~ ~
fnctv" nart ~ y tn ita ,fsimn to Mn n,,asb, tp
tha lihnn v ,,."s v n1.',isu au ai,,oa
iho s"u ronitio ~ nI,,on,,t tha ,1ro
Court |,aI done whit The tribunal was TO do.