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

adopt for advancement of the interests Of the |
State. But he, the relator, represented the |
people, taxpayers, in way be considered law |
full. In the eye of the law he solely repre-
scented the Taxpayers in their general capacity. |
He was not pleased with the language of |
counsel which implied that he was in collu-
sion with the bondholders. The language
was not gentlemanly; there was no reason for
1t. In this proceeding he should insist on his |
own behalf, In taking such course Is he saw
fit. He would not object to the attorney gen.
eral coming in and taking such course as, he
should see fit in favor of this application; but
would object to his fighting it. He
Judged from remarks 81 of counsel
that their first motion, if in control, would be
to dismiss the writ. Why? So that som.
other time they can move it their own waye
He, the relator should object to any step for
denying the writ. sae .osaaIiQ 81 ae7ay g.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL DENIED. q l1]
At this point recess was taken for consul
tatiop by the court, and the room was closed
The recess lasted nearly half an hour. b5bng0'
After the recess the chief justice announced.
that the application of the attorney general to
be admitted to take charge of these proceed
ings was denied. But the court would say to
the attorney general that if any question
the interests of the State are involved, the
court will hear him at any length. 1t simply
denies his right to control the case.
ATToRNY GENERALS NOTION TO DISMISS.
Attorney General Hahn-In that view of the
case m we to dismiss this writ. But If all
| the gentlemen in the case, and the court it.
self,'a ready to sweep aside all technical OBJ
jectious, l am then ready to dismiss the case
| "n its merits. make this motion to dis
| miss becauee | do not wish to have the case
| go OF on technlcality, after, discussion
of its merits. / do NOT desire to take
| time for discussion of its merits and
| Then be put out of court ON question of prac-
| ice He desired the court to look over the
| objections filed below as we'll, as those of the
| selator, and remarked that the objections pre-
sented below were not all that he had intended
| TO present in this court. gt
| Mr.. Cole said there was great deal of I'M
! necessary nervousness displayed It was to-
the interest Of all that the questions arising,
should be decided by this court. He was not
there to raise technical objections. The re
turn of the commission, drawn by him at
their request, stated that they intended to go on
and try the case presented to them. He had
to say for the board that he and his associates
waived all objections arising from the time
| and mode of this procedure. There would be
cordial concert on their part in hearing the
case on its merits. 9sa -
The Chief Justice-You consent to waive
the point that it was not brought by the at
torney general, and also that this relator did
not first lay his objections before the COM
mission.
| Mr.. Cole-Yes, sir.
On suggestion of the court the attorney
general was here understood to withdraw his
motion to dismiss.
| MR.. WILSON INQUIRIES.
Mr.. Wilson-Has not the court decided that
this proceeding may properly be brought by
the relator and need not be brought by the at
| tOrney general?
The chief jastice-No. Only that the at
torney general shall not take the control out
of the hands of the relator.
Mr.. Wilson-The attorney general is ready
to go on and argue the matter upon its merits.
But we understand the court to have decided
that the relatOr can control the argument iE
| this proceeding. m
The chief justice-We have said the attor-
ney general can argue in the case at any time.
Do you apprehend the relator can dismiss the
proceeding, contrary to the attorney general
| wishes?
Mr.. Wilson-No, not that exactly. never
| knew Mr.. Secombe to dismiss anything. But
this ease is precedent, and may have import
ant bearing upon the interests of the State.
| I understand the court to have held that any
private relator may come in and the attorney
general be allowed to take part only as a mat
ter of grace. as it were. ~
Mr.. Hahn-Will the court excuse us for a
consultation?
THE ATTORNEY GENERALS POSITION.
Mr.. Secombe said he would consent that
the attorney general may take any course he
sees fit. He objected only to the attorney
general and assistants coming in to kill the
writ. He would not object to their following
their own judg ment in aid Of the writ. q
The chief justice-The attorney general can
oppose or favor the writ. On the Interests of
the State he may argue as as he pleases, on
any ground he chooses to take.
MOTION TO DISMISS REVIVED.
The attorney general and assistants. hav-
ing retired a few minutes, on their return
Mr.. Wilson said the question being before the
court on the relation of a private party, though
the court has decided that the attorney gen.
eral may come in, as friend of the court, or
to represent the State, yet, the control being
| with the relator, they were led TO believe there
| would be not unity but difference in views
of the relator and of those representing the
State, and that the conflict would be to the
detriment of the State. Therefore the attorney
| general and his associates are of opinion this
| writ should be denied. If granted, it should
be on application of the attorney general He
desires to present it. to this court in the way
he considers best for the interests of the State,
| and objects to private relatOr taking control
and introducing discordant elements.
| Mr.. Cole-I understood the attorney general
declared his willingness to go on, and we con-
scented. 80 t-
| Mr.. Hahn-I don't think I fully appre-
hended then the effect of the courts ruling.
have not changed my view that if the case can
be presented fully we will go on. But If not,
don't want to prejudice the interests of the
| State.
The Chief Justice, to Mr.. Wilson'S that
| all you are afraid of-inconsistencies of the
relator's with the attorney generals argu-
| ments? - -
Mr., Wilson-That the suit OF present case
may be weakened by discordant elements-by
contradictory positions on the same side.
And again as to the mode of procedure, we
| think the States interests maybe prejudiced.
Mr.. 'Secombe felt free to say, after hearing
the counsel here and the other day before the
commissioners, that he had some fears. But
these he had waived He understood the
counsel and his alleged principal had come in
| to fight this writ, and renewed his former
question whether counsel for respondents
would introduce evidence.
GROUND OF THE NOTION. g.
The Chief Justice-Does the attorney gen.
eral move to dismiss? On what ground?
Mr.. Wilson, have endeavored to state it
clearly. Because the interests of the State are
those which are involved; because the relator
in control of the proceeding is private per-
son having no special interest, and, in con