Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1881-03-01

was largely increased. One thing could be
said to Mr.. Chamberlain's credit. No con-
tractor employed by him had gone without
his pay; no laborer who did work for him
went home without his wages.
The speaker did not believe the people of
this State would condemn their representatives
for voting for those bills If they did from an
honest conception of duty. He had too
much faith in the good sense, in the integrity
and honesty of the people to believe such a
thing. Here and there would be found some
blatent demagogue who would denounce the
members, but the great mass OF the people
would honor and respect man who would
stand up for and defend men who showed that
they regarded the honor OF the State so
highly. AS matters now stood, the bonds
could be paid without taxing the
people one cent. The railroad taxes now
amounted to about $500, 900 year, while the
internal improvement bonds would pay every
dollar of the obligations, and leave hand
some balance besides He wanted to see this
stigma upon the good name of the State re-
moved, so that one of our citizens going
elsewhere, need not be sneered at AMI insulted
by having attention called to the reputation
of the just debts of the State. We cannot in
good faith dispose of the internal improve
ment lands, and keep the proceeds while re-
pudiating our obligations.
from Winona had seen fit to criticise the
position of the supreme court. He had
noticed that when the judge wished to strike
the poignard deepest he sugared his words
with the softest of fattery, but the wound
was left to rankle. 1t was deeper than the
soothing balm with which it had been applied.
What if Judge Cornell had declared some time
in the past that the bonds would be paid; that
Judge Gilfillan had been an attorney in a suit
in which fOr tho Of oil qOrp11 Snit
the validity of the bonds was assumed, or that
Judge Berry had once been railroad attorney?
Did those facts prevent them from deciding a
legal propositon-the question of the consti-
nationality of the repudiating amendment?
He had the utmost confidence in the integrity
of these gentlemen, and thought they would
decide the question honestly and fairly.
o. B. GOULD, OF wINoNA.
Mr.. Gould argued at great length to prove
that the bonds were not legal obligation, as
they had been issued under authority of the
constitution adopted prior to the admission of
the State into the Union. He quoted extern
sively from legal decisions and ex-
ecutive acts to sustain his position
He closed by warning Republicans, if
they would not see their great
majority melt away like the snow upon the
hills, not to vote to pay these bonds; and
counselled the Democrats, if they had any
hope to escape from the deep damnation into
which their sins had plunged them, to vote
the bill down at all times.
JB. sANBoRN, OF RAMSEY.
Mr.. Sanborn said the real question at issue
was whether the State was willing to accept a
compromise at the rate of fifty cents on the
dollar, or whether it would repudiate the
whole amount. The gentleman who had just
spoken stood substantially upon the ground
that the king could do no wrong-that might
makes right. He held that because the State
was sovereign and could not be sued for a
debt honestly owed, therefore the debt should
not be paid. 1t was contemplate techni-
calty that he hoped would not have entered
into the discussion. The poorest citizen
of Great Britain could cite the government
into court to determine whether the govern
ment owed him q dollar or hundred dollars.
The same law exists in Spain and Italy, and
in Wisconsin the State can be sued at any hour
of the day. He went into the history of the
issue of the bonds, and claims that there was
never any intention on the part of the legis-
lature to repudiate the bonds. He thought
both the issue of the bonds and the amend
ment relating to their payment were alike con-
stitutiOnal. He was in favor of a constitu-
tional amendment which would open the
courts to all the creditors of the State; his
second preference was his own bill to open
the courts to these particular cases; and his
third was to present bills, which would re-
ceive his hearty support.
A. c. DUNN, OF FARIBAULT.
Mr.. Dunn argued in favor of the pending
bill, replying in detail to the argument of Mr..
Gould. He held that Minnesota became a
State on the adoption of the constitution, and
therefore the argument of the gentleman from
WinOna, that the bonds were not the bonds of
the State, was fallacious. He deprecated the
charges made impugning the motives of the
legislature that passed the constitutional
amendment, or of the present legislature. He
did not believe either of them had been actu-
ateo or influenced by improper motives. He
insisted emphatically that the amendment pro-
viding that the bonds should not be paid with
out submission to the people, was in direct
contraventlon, not only of the constitution of
the United States, but of the State of Mime
sofa, and was therefore void. He quoted from
the second of Otto to show that the supreme
court of the United States had practically
decided the multiplying amendment to be
violation of the faith of the State. if not of the
letter of the constitution, and proceeded to
score Judge Wilson in most unmerciful
manner for the amendments he had suggested,
declaring them fatal to the bill.
Mr. Hicks moved recess till o'clock.
Mr.. Wilson hoped the House would not con-
tinue consideration of the pending question,
as it would be impossible for him to be pres
ent, and he wished to answer some of the
statements that had been made.
Mr. Hicks was willing to permit Mr.. Will
son 80 minutes and then would renew his
motion.
l. I IL