Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1881-04-03
THE PENDING SETTLEMENT.

| Mr.. Mastepson and the Bond TribHndi---
| HIS arguments Considered.
| TO the Editor of the Globe.
am glad to see Mr.. Masterson's views
published in the GLOBE. He is an able
lawyer and his views are entitled to re-
spectful consideration. He predicates
them upon article of the constitution
which is as follows:
''The powers Of government shall be
divided into three distinct departments,
legislative, executive and judicial, and
no person or persons belonging to or con-
shutting one of these departments shall
exercise any of the powers properly be-
longing to either of the others, except in
the instances expressly provided in this
constitution"
Conceding that the Judges of
the supreme court are persons belong
ing to the judicial department, the ques-
ton arises as to what they are to do un-
der the bond adjustment law.
They are to pass upon the ''power of
the legislature to provide for the pay
ment, adjustment or settlement of the
liability of the State' on the State
railroad bonds, Notwithstanding the
amendment to the constitution of Nov.
6, 1860. Is this exercising power prop
erly belonging to the legislative depart
ment? 1t is not easy to see how it can
be SO construed. The legislature does
not so construe it, nor is it the custom of
that or of any other department of this
or any government to yield any OF it's
prerogatives to another department.
The legislature makes laws, the eXecu-
tive sees to their execution and the judi
ciary construes them. These are funda-
mental propositions embraced in the
organic codes or bill of rights of the
general and State government.
As court, therefore, no one will pre-
tend that the judges would not be re-
quired to decide the question referred to
them by this act; and would that involve
the exercise of legislative powers? Being
before them to decide, not as court, but
as tribunal of eminent persons, do they
thus become usurpers, and exercise
powers properly belonging to the legis-
lative department?
They are not called upon to make law,
but to construe one already made.
Nor is the reference of the question to
these eminent persons as tribunal TAX
ing it from the courts, as Mr.. Masterson
seems to think it is. 1t has not been be-
fore them as court. If the tribunal
passes upon it, it may be taken before
them as court, and other courts, by per-
sons aggrieved, lin such forms as are known
to the law and judicial proceedings.
! trust Mr.: Masterson does not speak
the views of the judges. If he does, the
matter will present itself in substance
something like this:
The legislature: Judge A. and Y our
Associates: "We have authorized and re-
quested you, not as a court nor yet as law
makers, but as tribunal of eminent
persons to say whether IN your opinion
we can settle and adjust the claims of the
State railroad bondholders without SUBJ
hitting the terms of settlement to
a vote of the people; if
you find that we can't, that ends
the matter so far as you are concerned;
but if you think we can, we want you
further to decide any disputes that may
arise about the ownership to any of the
bonds, and also to hear testimony and de-
eide upon the merits of unpaid claims of
certain persons who labored upon the
railroads On account of which bonds
were issued, and for supplies and ma
terials furnished therefor"
Judge Awe can't do this ::
it is your business, not ours; besides, it is
legislative business to construe laws, not
judicial. True, if brought before us as
a court we could then construe it, but
being before us as a tribunal of referees,
it becomes horse of another color, a
legislative function which is prohibited
by the organic law, and although you
say it isn't, we say it is, and you may
take your old law and 60 to the -
thunder with it, and we advise you to
hereafter know your own business, and
attend to it, and we will attend to ours. -
That is about the way it looks to
LAYMAN.
ST.. PAUL, April 5, 1881.