Iowa County democrat. [volume] (Mineral Point, Wis.) 1877-1938, 1881-09-23
Minnesota Debt

Sr. PNI, Sept. 14.-The supreme
court made public to-day the most inn
portant decision ever rendered in Min
neSota. 1t was upon an application for
an injunction to prohibit the tribunal
for the adjustment Of the disputed debt.
formed last winter, 70 sit. The ground
Of the application is the constitutional
amendment of 1850, providing that no
payment of the bonds shall ever be
made without submission of the queS-
ton TO a popular vote. After review
ing the act of1SS1 and the amendment
of 1860. the court SAYS: The writ { ! pro
hihitionS issues usually 10 cosrtS 10
keep them within the limits of their
jurisdiction, but it may issue 10 an Off
Ger 70 prevent the unlawful exercise of
judicial or quasi judicial power. The
exercise of unauthorized judicial or
quasi judicial power is regarded rs a
contempt Of the sovereign which may
result in injury To the state or citizens
These things are essential to Justify the
writ. First, because that the court otli-
Ger or person is about to exercise Judi
cial or quasi judicial power; second that
the exercise of such power 10y such per
SNkA NA NbNAN II tlildIlnOElANNl Nv AdN.
third. that il will result i'll injury for
which there is no adequate remedy.
The act of March :, 1881, does not at
tempt 70 confer on the respondents ju-
dIclal power i'll the strict sense Of the
term. Ii submits to their decision
judicial question, and although their
decision on il could not have the au-
thoritatlve and binding force of a court
OF Justice, yet the act provides for car
rylng II into effect as though il were
binding, giving il y quasi judicial oper
alton. That injury 10 the state and
citizens Will result is apparent from
the fact that such result will he the
issue of involved obligations Of the
state to the amount of millions of dol
lars. Except TINS writ there exists no
judicial remedy for the threatened evils.
II the act is VOID. and SO contcrs no au-
thorlty on the respondents, the writ
must issue. The basis of the applica-
ton is the proposition that the act of
March :, 1881, is unconstitutional and
void, only two reasons of which on
account of their superior Importance
We think Il necessary 10 consider
First, because il is contrary to the
amendment 10 the constitution of Nov
&, 1860. to the effect that no law levying
tax or making other provisions for
payment Cf the bonds shall take effect
till approved by vote of the electors
of the state and. second, because it is
an attempt 70 give the Judges legisla-
tive power, masmuch rs II leaves ii for
them to determine whether section
or section , of the act shall he law In
answer To the first the respondents urge
that the amendment of 1860 referred
to is itself void because repugnant to
the constitution of the United States
\ more importan. and difficult quCs-
ton has rarely ever come before
court IN this country. Courts ALWAYS
regard il matter Of great dclicacy to
pass on the validity Of an act Of the leg
lslature. Ii is much more so when the
validity of II constitution adopted by
the people Of a state is called III ques-
ton; yet, when law for u state is nj
| legged to be contrary to some clause in
the constitution of the United States,
il is immaterial whether it was passed
by the legislature or by the people in
| framing the constitution for themselves
| The decision then goes on ut great
| length 10 discuss the above proposition,
and finally reaches the conclusion that
| the act of 1860 known as the expung
ing amendment, is unconstitutional and
void, us il conflicts with the provision
of the United States constitution relat-
ing To the impairment of contracts.
The second and third points, declaring
the act Of March > unconstitutional
and ordering the writ of prohibition To
issue, are discussed at great length.
The whole decision covers about l9O
folios. Its great length prevents even
a brief synopsis, but the following is II
summary, which will be found to en-
brace all the material points, and is, in
! fact, an abbreviated syllabus of the decis-
! ion: First, that the constitutional a.
mendment Of 1860, requiring the
question Of the payment Of the railroad
bonds to be submitted 60 the people at
general election, etc, 1T is void, be-
cause il impairs the obligation Of the
contract between the state and the
! bondholders; second hat the act Of
March . last, providing for the adjust
| mcnt Of railroad bonds, is unconstitu-
| tlonal and void, because il delegates To
/ the tribunal created thereby legislative
! power; third, that the writ Of prohibit
| ION To restrain the tribunal from acting
hereunder rs prayed. The act Of last
winter is thus rendered entirely inop-
erative, and the matter of adjustment
Of the bonds relegated to future legisla-
tures. The decision is understood to
have been unanimous. The decision,
though il quarters the tribunal estab-
lished for the settlement Of tie debt
upon basis af 80 cents ON the dollar,
as agreed with the bondholder, last
winter, is regarded as Il victory for the
debt-paying forty-seven. II distinctly
empowers future legislatures to pay the
debt without submission to popular
vote.