Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1881-07-29

A recess was mere taken I'LL S:0U p. IN.
+ Ga5iD+A AFTER THE RECESS.
I During the afternoon sitting the attendance
of spectators was the same as in the morning,
and included Selah Chamberlain, Of Cleveland,
and Hon. John F. Norrlsh, OF Hastings.
@.'s- AN INTRUSION.
Mr.. Wilson, prepared with formidable ar
ray of books, opened the argument in favor OF
the motion to dismiss. Referring to cases
where private interests being involved, the re-
lator ought to control, he said the appear
ance therein of the attorney general would be
an Intrusion just as the appearance of pri-
vate relator where the interest was wholly that
of the State seemed to him to be an intrusion,
and then read at length from Judge Denio's
opinion, [1Sth N. ~ in Doolittle VS.. the Su-
pervisors of Bronze county, and also read
from the cases cited therein.
POSITION OF COLE AND ASSOCIATES.
Pending his reading the chief justice ques-
toned Mr.. Cole as to the position of himself
and associates on the motion to dismiss, and
Mr.. Cole replied that they of course wanted
the writ refused, though not here and on this
motion, but on hearing of its merits. They
wished to hear what was said, and if they
could would suggest why the writ should be
heard on its merits.
.
ARGUMENT FOR THE NOTION.
Mr.. Wilson, after remarking that he under
stood the counsel did not formally appear
with Mr.. Secombe, proceeded with reading au-
thorities to show that private relatOr is not
allowed to come in except where he sets up a
special or peculiar injury not common to the
public at large, and further quoted DEMO that
no private person, nor any number of them
can assume to represent public rights. Mr..
Wilson remarked. If this does not apply
here don't know what could. Shall a private
party step in and intercept the attorney
general? II such persons can come
in and present the case in
| their way he would like to know
advance. But he was talking now of the
principle. The question is whether tie attor-
ney general shall have control or some other
person come in to switch him off That the
attorney general should have to make this
contest with those represented as friends of
the State was great wrong and injustice.
Continuing his citations, Mr.. Wilson
quoted Chief Justice Dixon, that in allowing
private REALTORS to interfere with public is
l sues the public inconvenience would be enOr-
nous.
81 Penn, 104--Proceedings for the public
| must be by the attorney general. Private
parties cannot interfere.
IS N. O., 1913 '2t-Private parties cannot
proceed except affected in private rights dis
tinct from other citizens. Kan, and Is
Kan, the same.
settled that private individual is not prop
Ter party to such case. Individual interests
| In good government, are joint and not sew
| eral. - ~, : H.. - .,.sa1.ss
/ The principle Of. those cases, Mr.. Wilson
said, apply to the case here before us. It
must be admitted as to equity
the court is often influenced by
the peculiar conditions of the case. In the
Red Wing case, the tax payer was allowed to
interfere before the bonds. were issued. But
the case was exceptional and SO regarded. 1t
does not override the two prior decisions in
this State on the principle involved here.
Council proceeded to explain the rulings in
81 Eng, com. law, Ill, and Lie do. 19S-199,
as having been made under exceptional condi-
tions and proceeded: In this case I do say the
attorney general should not be asked to state
all the reasons why he now moves
by want of !, thought or judgment
as well as by evil intent. Already we have
been preiudiced. I do insist the matter of de-
tending The right of the State should be left to
the officers designated by the State.
The New York statute providing that if the
proper officer does not appear for the public
that 4 private person may appear, was cited
as iMpiying that if the officer is present no
other person shall interfere.
= 9e MR.. sEcoMB8's REPLY.
Mr.. Secombe opened by saying it was singu-
lar that the counsel and his principal, the at
torney general, should be SO bothered by the In
tervention of the relator in this case. He denied
the right of counsel or his alleged principal
to make this motion in any other capacity ex-
cept as admitted here, as friends of the court
This Is statute proceeding, not one in
equity. Here Mr.. Secombe read from the
statute regarding writs of prohibition, and
said: It says the party prosecuting the writ.
not the State or the attorney general 1t was
not absolutely necessary that the writ should
issue in name of the State. He claimed the
relator was not only the proper party but the
only party to this proceeding. The parties,
by coming into court, have conceded that this
proceeding is not invalid because in
the name of an individual: They
matter on its merits. There is that much
only of collision between us.
!. The Red Wing case was quoted by counsel
as exceptional, because the bonds were yet to
be issued, and might then 60 into the hands of
innocent holders, leaving the taxpayers no
remedy. That is this case precisely. If this
tribunal be permitted to 20 on and decide either
Way, that Lne cOnSGltublOu 10 COucutueiOuai vi
that it is unconstitutional-in one case gong
to the people-then the new bonds
can be issued, and go in
to the hands of innocent holders
and there will be no remedy. The officers
whose duty it will be to pay the money are
exempt from any process regarding the exer-
else Of their official discretion. Once let the
tribunal act nothing can interfere and the |
moneys of this relator now in the State treas
ury for specified purposes will be diverted and
he be taxed to make it up.
They say they come here because the law
makes it their duty. The relator is here be-
cause he claims that that law is uncOnstitu-
tional and void in every particular. One OBJ
lection is that the attorney general Is about
to seize upon $500 and pay it to these
learned gentlemen. They want to earn it,
bu. deny the right of the attorney gen
eral to touch that money. His proceed
ing was calculated not only to put. an
end to,the tribunal, but to the attorney gen.
erals assistants.
The parties to this proceeding (the court
having decided the State is not party, by
ruling that the attorney general cannot come
in to control) have waived the objections he
- .1,os ord wiI1 bring the case on its merits.