The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1881-09-16

ffI Udl* aEus WIZ ~
interest Of rspu6istleB. IS we were Tea INTO
say,pr by The telegram npoe which our re-
,n,fss wefe based. but one in favor OF .honor
ana honesty. That court. In a long and
learned discussion OF ali the points raised
IN INC case. decided thai lbe constitutional
amendment which Minnesota adopted 10
1870 was itself unconstitutional; bat Is TO
saw. uas in conflict with the Constitution Of
sbe limited states 10 that II provided that
,he state debt should not be settled under
any law which had not been submitted 10
the people Tor their approval. This provision
az The Constitution OF Minnesota has Tor
twcp,y.one years stood 10 the way oil 1ne
settlement OF the debt Of that State, ana ye.
now. AZ the end Of that long period, comes
the highest court OF Minnesota and declares
that provision to be null and yo'd oecasse
IN confic, with that clluse in the Consiitu-
lion of The United states which prohibits g
STATE from posing any law impairlng the
obligation OF contracts.
The reader cannot fail 10 recollect Just
here that The R~esoiusteTs have attempted
10 make much capital out Of their otter to
subm,t the RrDDLgBERGgR bill 70 a vote OF
the people. But 10 Whist endf II the bill
"a unconstitutional in that 1t repudiates
thirteen millions Of The States debt-thus
immieing the obligation Of her solemn con-
trAct-tbe approval OF tho voters viii give
il no additional life. IL is dead before II Is
horn. II will not stand a moment IN the
courts. Nor will there be any difficulty In
getting a case into the courts. The more
you dghl against justice, the longer viii be
the contest. That's all. At the end OF
twenty-nay, II f~orty-years, the honest
debt Of Virginia will clamor for payment.
And paid il will be. II not by YOU, ye
voters OF 1881, then By Your children's
children nc solne time hereafter perhaps
after the year 1900. There IS no final read
inst meut in the R-IDDLEBERGER bill.
The Chicago Times furnishes US the full
est report we have seen OF the celebrated
Minnesota d~ecisi0n-well known already,
but destined to be as famous as the Oft
cited decision in the Dartmouth College
case. Our renders will therefore excuse us
for quoting at some length from our Cbica-
60 contemporary. The Times Of Monday
last says:
"Tbe Supreme Court OF Minnesota made
public saturday the most important decision
ever rendered in that State. IL was upon
ON application for an Injunction TO prohibit
The tribunal for the adjustment OF The dis
puted debt, formed last winter, to ST. ibis
tribunal was 10 settle the debt at CITY cents
on .be dollar The ground Oh the applica-
ton is the constitutional amendment OF
1860 providing that no payment OF The bonds
shall ever be made without submission OF
tie question TO a popular vote. Aiier re-
viewing The act OF 1881 Establishing q iri-
bunal 10 settle the debit and the amend.
meut Of 1860, the court says:
.sThe writ Of prohibition issues usually
TO courts 10 keep them within the limits of
their Jurisdiction, but ii may issue TO an
officer 10 prevent the unlawful exercise OF
Judicial or quasi Judicial power. '
The basis OF the appllcstion tfor The writ oil
probibitiOpl Is the proposition that the act
Of March ., 1881, ia unconstitutional and
void. only " reasons OF which on account
OF their superior importance we think 1t
necessary 10 consider. First, because 1t is
contrary TO the amendment to the Copstitu-
tIon of November O., 1860, to The effect that
no law leyying a tax orsmsking other pro-
visions for payment OF the bonds shall take
eject TIL approved by q vote OF the electors
Of the State; and, second, because II Is
an attempt TO give the judges legisla-
tive " inasmUch as 1t leaves II
for them To determine whether section 4 or
section 3 of the act shall be law. In ans
swert to the hi st the respondents Tgetbatt the
amendment OF 1880 referred 10 Is Itself void
because repuguant 10 the Constitution OF
the United States. A more important and
difficult question has rarely ever come be-
tore q court In the country. Courts always
regard II a matter OF great d~elicacy 10 pass
on the validity OF an act OF the Legislature.
Ii Is much more so when The validity OF a
Constitution adopted by the people Of a
State is called in question; yet when a law
for a State Is alleged TO be contrary TO some
y clause in the Constitution OF the United
#fStates ii is imma;erial whether it was passed
n 10y the Legislature or by the people IN
q framing the Constitution for themselves"
The decision then goes on at great
length to discuss the above proposition, and
finally reaches the conclusion that the act OF
1850, known as the eXpungiug amendment,
IS unconstitutional and void, rs il conflicts
with the provision OF the United States
Constitution relating TO the impairment oil
CONTRACTS. The second and third points
declaring the act Of March I'd unconstitu'
ti0nal, and ordering The writ OF prohibition
to issue, are discussed at great length. The
whole decision covers about one hundred
and ninety ioli0s. Its great length pre-
vents even a brief synopsis, but the follow
ing is a summary, which will be found ia
embrace all the material points, and is, in
fact, an abbreviated syllabus OF the deci-
sion First, that The constitutional amend
ment OF 1860, requiring the question OF the
payment OF the railroad bonds to be submit
TED 10 the people atageneral election, etc, is
void, becau.e II impairs the obligation OF
the contract between the State and the
bondholders; second, that the act OF March
I'd last, providing for the adjustment Of
railroad bonds, Is unconstitutional and
void, because il delegates 10 the tribunal
created thereby legislative power; third,
that the writ OF prohibition to restrain the
tribunal from acting hereunder shall Issue
as prayed. The act Of last winter is thus
rendered entirely imperative, and the mat.
ter OF adjustment OF the bonds relegsted to
future Legislatures. The decision Is un-
derstood TO have been unanimous. The de.
eislon. though il destroys the tribunal
established for the settlement Of the debt
upon a basis OF fifty cents on the dollar, as
agreed with the bondholder last winter, Is
regarded as a victory for the debt.paying
foriy-seyen. II distinctly empowers futur,
Legislatures to pay the debt without sub
mission 70 a popular vote.
Thus Is the RIDDLEBERGER bill riddleC
under the first OF the three propositions
laid down By the court. The first is:
!. That q constitutional amendment re
quiring the question Of the payment OF Q
States bonds TO be submitted TO vote Of