Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1881-08-04


does not constitute it inferior to the supreme
| court. The legislature, perhaps, might have
| undertaken to adjust this matter without the
tribunal, but it did not and it had the right to
| create the tribunal for its special purpose. .
In 26 Ala, 1856, it is said that what is meant
in the constitution by judicial powers are
those with which the courts are clothed. 1t
is not intended to deny to other departments
of government the powers in their nature
judicial whA are necessary to their opera
ton. 'frH -" 9
In 1 Black, sos, these principles are ap-
piled to the, writ of prohibition, it being held
it would not issue, because outside of the con-
stitutional powers of the supreme court of
the United States, where it had no appellate
jurisdiction.
| In 43 Iowa, 25S, where the court was to have
added territory to the city of Dubuque by its
decree, following vote of the people, the leg
islature might have conferred the power else
where, or on a special tribunal.
| In 7 Fed. Rep, 653, the court exercised ju-
dcial powers regarding rights to the interna-
tional railroad bridge.
| DELEGATED LEGISLATIVE POWERS.
| In passing to his next theme Gen. Colesaid
this was an attempt to compel the State to
pay her debt-an attempt Of the legislature to
appoint board of arbitrators to settle the
only point of difference between the State and
| ucT cTtullOTS. StttluS dSluc Gut ducuQIucQb
of 1860 the legislature had the right to pay,
and, if it desired to couple the payment with
a condition, it had the right to do it. If it is
the agent of the State, acting within the line
of its powers, no objection can be made. It
was settled clearly in Western Railroad COM
pany VS.. DeGraff that the legislature could do
as it pleased with the State property. So we
say it may do what it pleases with the State
| Indebtedness. brtf-
The question has been, if this tribunal was
to exercise judicial powers. If not, the exer-
else of legislative powers does not give this
court jurisdiction. If this court decides that
] the tribunal is. not an inferior court, that
terminates this case If the tribunal does not
exercise judicial powers, that terminates this
case. But if tpis court holds that it is an in
| feriOr court or tribunal, we come back and
hold that the legislature had the power to take
| this action under the constitutional amend
ment of 1860; and that is the only view in
which that amendment can be discussed here.
THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
| In 1858 the people of this State, in their
primary capacity-and here it may perhaps be
tho, 1t important to divide this entity called
the State into its component parasitic people,
distinct and separate from the legislature, pro-
vided, (reading the constitutional amendment
of 1885, for the loan of IS, 100000 in the States
| credit, in aid Of the land grant railroads,
designating the bonds as minnesota State
railroad bonds and their action as loan of
| the State credit. Uuder that provisio n over
one thousand State bonds of 81 600 each were
| delivered to certain railroad companies and by
| them were regularly transferred to my client.
| Wilson-The judges of the commission.
| Cole--Ah, that's good. In the earlier stage
| of the proceedings represented the cOmmis-
| sioners. On this branch of the subject rep
resent Selah Chamberlain.
| Here Gen. Cole exhibited and read one of
| the bonds which had been brought in at his
request by his client. But tirs, he shook it in
| the air in direction of eX-Judge Wilson, re-
marking that shaking one of the bonds be-
| fore him usually made repudiationist as
mad as a bull would be at the shaking of a
| red rag
| Continuing his argument he said that the
power ordinarily vested in courts as to private
contracts, at the time these bonds issued was
vested in the legislature. 1t was to see
/ they should not be repudiated and that the
fair faith and credit of the State should be
maintained. With that power solemnly en-
bedded in the fundamental law
it was matter of contract and not leg
islation. 1t was not in the exercise
| of governmental powers but in the capacity
| of borrower that the State launched its prop
osition. The bonds were issued pursuant to
/ a contract which became @ perfect contract
l his bonds Such are the circumstances under
which these neglected instruments issued.
The attorney general says this is an imper-
feet obligation, and likens 1t to the obligation
to show gratitude. If it was an obligation of
| gratitude it would be better for the State to
show more of it, for she owes. more of her
great railroad system to this one old man
represent than to all other agencies COM
| bined. ~, y
I regret it should go out that the attorney
| general only contests our claim that the
amendment of 1860 is void, by saying we can
| not compel the State to pay. That has been
the refuge of reputation for twenty years and
is all the attorney general pleads before the
| supreme court to-day. The reason is worse
than the fact.
| Now in 1860, after these bonds had issued !,
after great amount of labor had been done
on these railroads, after the State had fore
closed and transferred the roads and grants,
she put into the constitution a perpetual
menace to the bondholders. 1t was adopted
about Jan. 1, 1860. Within less than two
| years after the legislature had accepted the
| trust, under the contract between the State
and its creditors, to see that taxpayers fulfilled
the condition of the contract, the legislature
surrendered its trust. It is that we complain
| of. We say that if ever there was an act i'm
pairing the obligation of contract, destroy
ing its commercial and negotiable value, that
| act was IN GnlS amenQmenG OF lSOU. IL is my
duty to show that.
| The want of remedy and the inability to
obtain one are quite different things. In the
| Wisconsin case (Reese VS.. Watertown) the su-
preme court was confessedly powerless to en-
force remedy. Does my friend mean that the
remedy ceased the moment the supervisors
resigned? If a new board had been elected
the next week upon which a mandamus could
have been served. the obligation would have
| been renewed. rc
| Pothier is to be understood as talking of
contracts void. Here the viciousness of the
State argument crops out, and I say to my
friend Judge Wilson, l know that 1t did not
| originate with the attorney general. In speak
| ing of natural and imperfect contracts the dis
| cussion was of questions foreign to these by
a Roman writer who never heard of munich
pal bond. Is that authority for the State? If
the sovereign State issues its bond, is it not
binding, except there is power to enforce its
But we say there was remedy. The legis-
lature had the power to give us an effectual
remedy. The recalcitrant voters would have
been powerless to vote up this amendment had
not the legislature surrendered it's sacred trust
to them-surrendered the prerogative of leg
islative power. Imagine the power of taxa
ton vested in the persons to pay
taxes! Imagine a government carried
on by voluntary contributions! Wherever
the Anglo-Saxon race rules, the purse is in
vested in the lower house of parliament or.
/ lepislature Yet onr lepislatlIre divested If.