Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1881-08-02
THE BOND QUESTION.

Close of Attorney General Hahn's Argu-
ment-The Amendment of 1860 Valid
Not In Violation of the United States
Constitution = A Learned Argument,
from Standard Authorities.
At the sitting of the supreme court yester-
day afternoon, Attorney General Hahn re-
sumed his argument, in opening the case for
the State on the hearing, by the supreme
court, of the application for writ of pro-
hibilion directed to the bond tribunal or CON-
mission, by presenting as follows the propo-
sition that the act under which the commits
sion is organized, is unconstitutional, because,
in conflict with the anti-bond amendment of
1860, to the State constitution. The attorney
general said:
If it is claimed that all the positions we have
heretofore assumed are erroneous, then we say
the act is clearly and palpably unconstitution-
al as being in conflict with section Q, article 9
of the constitution, which provides: ''But
no law levying tax or making other provis-
ions for the payment of interest or principal
of the bonds denominated Minnesota State
railroad bonds shall take effect or be In
force until such law shall have been submit
ted to a vote of the people of the State, and
adopted by majority of the electors of the
State voting upon the same. )"
The act In question does make provision for
the payment of interest and principal of said
bonds; but the same has not been submitted to
the people of the State and has not been adopted
by a majority of the electors as required by
said constitutional provisions; nor does said
act, save in one contingency, propose to sub
NIT the provisions thereof to the people of
the State. [See sections 2 and s.
THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
1t will undoubtedly be claimed that this
constitutional amendment is imperative and
void, because it is in conflict with that part of
section 10, article l, of the constitution of the
United States, which prohibits the passage of
any law "impairlng the obligation OF con-
tracts"
In our opinion it clearly is not open to any
such objection, and for two very potent and,
to our minds, unanswerable reasons.
But, as preliminary to the examination of
this question, which is one of the
most important and momentous
propositions which can be pre-
sented for investigation and decision to
any tribunal, it may not be inappropriate to
call the attention of the court to the views
of eminent jurists with reference to the man.
ner in which such grave and serious queS-
ton should be dealt with.
Just here / desire to say, in order to save
time and trouble, that we do. not claim or
urge that these are not contracts made by
State, within the scope of the constitutional
inhibition contained in section 10, article l.
We propose to show that the amendment to
the constitution of 1860 does not so come
within such scope. l make this statement
here, as l said, to save time and dispute here
after.
"No court" said that great Judge, Chief
Justice Shaw, in 1e Pickering, 95, "should
ever delcare statute void unless the nullity
nd iuvalidity of the act are placed in their
Judgment beyond reasonable doubt"
GA reasonable doubt must be solved in favor
of the legislative action and the act be sus-
tained," says Judge Cooley, Const. Limit, p:
300.
"The question whether a law be void for its
repugnancy to the constitution is at all times
a-auestion of much delicacy, which ought sell
dom, if ever, to be decided in the affirmative
in doubtful case. It is not on slight
duplication and vague conjecture that the leg
,slature is to be pronounced to have transcend
ed its power and its acts to be con-
,ldered void. The opposition between the.
constitution and the law shonld be such that
the Judge feels clear and strong conviction
f their Incompatible with each other"
,.arshall, C, j., in Fletcher VS. Peck, 6 Couch,
1873. .
III is but decent respect" say the court
O.r.en VS. Saunders, II Wheaton, 270, educ
the wisdom, the integrity, and the patriot
ism of the Legislative body by which any law
pissed, to pr. sumo in avOr OF ITS Validity
Until It's violation of the.cQnstitution is proved
beyond all reasonable doubt.
Surely the same caution, the same presump-
ton, should be exercised aud entertained and
he same degree of Inconsistency shouid-be
demanded when we come to consider clause
in the organic law Itself.
First We say that this constitutional
amendment is valid because the obligation of
the contract, claimed to have been made be-
tween the State and the holders of the railroad
bonds under consideration, was not and is not
such an obligation as was designed to be pro-
tected by, or is in fact included in, the inhi-
bition of the constitution of the United
States.
THE OBLIGATION OF CONTRACTS.
AS will be seen, this section 10 of article 1,
protects the obligation of the contract.
1t therefore becomes necessary on the very
Threshold of this investigation to ascertain
and determine what is TO be understood-what
is the true construction of the words, "obli-
cation or the contract"
"The term obligation" says the supreme
court of Kentucky, in Blair VS.. Williams,
Little, &c. whether we construe its
etymology or its general acceptation in our
own language, will be found to signify liga-
ment or e-something which binds or obliges
us to do some act. 1t is derived Immediately
from the latin substantive ObigatiG which
is from the verb obligare, to tie, to bind, to
oblige. X X The obligation of a con-
tract, therefore, is and can be nothing else but
that which obliges person to perform his
contract or to repair the injury done by
failure to perform it. y
But there are two kinds of obligations I'M
der which every person rests, with reference
to the various duties which may be imposed
upon him, perfect and imperfect, or as Po-
TIMER puts it, civil and natural. The imperfect
or natural Tor, as it is sometimes put, mora)
obligation is one which cannot be enforced by
action, but which is binding on the party who
makes it in conscience and according TO natural
justice. Pothier. 103, 191 and 1875. Q Bouyier
252. as 81 d, - 81
a perfect or civil obligation is one which
has binding operation in law and which
gives to the obligee right of enforcing it in
a court of justice. Blair VS.. Williams, 4 Lit
tie, KY, 80.
Is it then perfect or imperfect, or as Po-
thier puts it, the civil or natural. obligation,
or both, which is protected by this constitu-
tional provision and to which of these two
classes does the contract under consldera-
ton belong? gee .klsa ga "a
First-It is the perfect or civil and not the
imperfect or natural obligation that is meant.
II is the legal obligation which Consists in
The remedy given by law to enforce its per-