Mower County transcript. [volume] (Lansing, Minn.) 1868-1915, 1881-08-10
THE BONDS.

Al TIE appointed lime the Bona It'll
bunal Was organized, and able counsel
for both State: and bondholdars were
present. Mr.. Hahn, the Attorney Gener-
al, opened the: case, but twas taken out
of his hands by Mr.. Secombe Of Mime
apolis, a selfcoDstltuted attorney for the
State, who gave notice that he would ap-
ply to the Supreme Court for writ pro-
hibitlng the Tribunal to take any action
After considerable debate, the Judges de.
clded that the management of the case
should be in the Attorney General, but
that arguments would be- respectfully
heard from any attorney for either OF the
parties 10 the case. The judges also gave
notice that they would answer before the
Supreme Court, to the application for the
writ Of prohibition, and they adjourned
until the I'd inst.
The parties Immediately appeared be-
fore the Supreme Court, to argue whether
or not the writ should issue. As the is.
suance OF the writ would permanently
stop the action of the Tribunal, the real
fight was thus transferred to the Supreme
Court. And royal one it has been, too !
For several days counsel for both sides
have presented arguments that are cred
it to the Bar Of the State, and adduced
numerous weighty auth critics for every
point advanced. The decision of the
Court will probably be rendered to-day.
We are not intending to join in the
ranks Of those journalists who disparage
their opponents arguments and undaly
laud those favorable to their own views.
The arguments on both sides were strong,
and whether the writ be granted or not
is uncertain; and as fir as the real point
at Issue is concerned, it is immaterial.
If the question of the bonds be not now
justly settled, 1t will appear again and
again, like the ghost IN the drama. It Is
we'll that The writ has been argued; ev-
cry step possible should be taken to test
the validity Of the bonds and of the Tri
bunal, and to convince the people of the
truth of the whole bond question. II the
writ be granted, the matter of settlement
will only be postponed. Those bonds
bear the seal of this State, and every
evasion Of the claims of their holders,
brands us more deeply as regulators.
If the bonds be fraudulent, let them be
so adjudgcd and forever disposed Of; if
they be true promises Of the State. then
let those promises be kept, and our rep.
utatlon, for at least common honesty pre-
served.
1t is not denied that the bonds were
issued legally and in due form, upon a
large majority vote of the people. Nor
is it deniable that the railroad com
panies disposed Of the bonds for what
ever they could get, and then abandoned
the enterprise, leaving The State without
roads and two or three millions in debt
But does the subsequent wrong on the
part Of tue companies release the State
from Its promises, and should the parties
who purchased the bonds in good faith
suffer loss, because. the interests Of the
State were not properly guarded? The
people were told that they would never
be called upon to pay the bonds, but
they were told so by no responsible par
ty, and the bonds bear no evidence OF
such compact between the people and
the railroad companies.
Nor, again, is it disputed that the con
stitution was so amended that ino settle
ment Of the bonds can be made without
submitting such settlement to the vote OF
the people. But no principle Of law is
clearer than that subsequent legislation
can in no way impair the validity and
fulfllment Of contract in right and JUS
tice. In their sovereign power, the people
may ignore the principle, and repudiate
the claims of the bondholders; but we
are certain that a universal Quietly would
ensue, if such practice were the rule Of
our courts in common business affairs.
Whether the amendment BIZ valid or not,
is the work OF the Tribunal to determine,
and we sincerely hope that nothing bu,
what is legal and just will in any way
interfere with its duty, and thus prevent
final settlement of the great question
Of the bonds.
The bond tribunal met on the ID, and
Immediately adjourned until Sept. 9Th,
awaiting the decision of the Supreme
Court as to the right of the Tribunal to act.