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

but what could we say IN mltlgdtlon II
they were to take office under it, swear to
support all, and then repudlate part!
Such conduct would certainly call forth
from all, what have just said, that the
right to question the validity of any part
of a constitution belongs only to those
who are not holding office under it.
The alleged conflict of the provision OF
the State constitution with the provision
of the constitution of the United States
that no State shall pass a law imposing
the obligation of contracts, does not
exist, for that is negattge only, and
prescribes no afirmatice duty. In its
nature and by its plain words 1t is
incapable of infraction by the mere neg
Iect to pass law However reprehenslble
may be the neglect of State legislature
to pass adequate laws TO enforce the OBJ
legation of contracts, an cases lcaere under
the State constitution 1t has authority to do
50, the neglect to pass such law, or any
law at all, violates no part of the consti-
tuition of the United States, which, as we
have seen, commands no affirmative ac
ton. Noon pretends that law SUBJ
hitting q proposed settlement of those
bonds TO the people for approval, as re-
Quired by the State constitution, would
be a violation of the constitution of the
United States. 1t follows that those who
are sworn to support both constitutions,
State and federal, may pass law on this
subject that is in conflict with neither;
and that is what should be done.
HENRY +. MAsTERsoN.
an 4ttack Made Upon the BOND Question
6y "One Of the People"
To the Editor of the Globe.
The Pioneer Press has for a week past
been training its heavy guns upon the
so called 'Bond Tribunal and under
taken the task of educating the mem
bers thereof, or-as many believe-of
preparing the public mind for what is in
evitably coming, upon the theory that
the tribunal has been organized to con-
vict" Whatever may be your views up
on the subject, L have no doubt you will
permit one of the people to say few
words in reply to this champion of what
the majority of the people of Minnesota
regard as the greatest 1nfamy of the
age-the pending bond measure,
The main question involved in the pre-
sent controversy is not, whether the
bonds should be paid, but whether the
people shall be deprived of the right
which belongs to them, of ratifying or
rejecting any payment or settlement of
the bonds which is proposed to be made,
while the constitution expressly provides
that all such propositions shall be SUBJ
mitted to them.
The pretext for creating the tribunal
is contemplate subterfuge, and it is
astonishing that any judge would allow
himself to be used in such contemplate
and unparalleled outrage upon the rights
of the people. If it is claimed the con-
stitution is unconstitutional, there is
proper way to have that decided, viz: in
the courts in the usual way, and the peo-
pie would have much preferred to have
our legislature throw open the doors of
our courts to the bondholderS, rather than
that they should be robbed of their legal
rights in this way, and through the in
strumentality of political, extra judicial
tribunal like this. No legislative servant
of the people had right to assume that
the people were dishonest or would do
wrong. On the contrary it was his duty
to assume that the people would rat1fy
any proposition that would be approved
by him as fair to the bondholder, and
just to the people. Not one of them
have, since the adjournment of the legis-
lature, had the face to come forward and
defend his action, and his base treason to
his constituency. This Is the main ques-
ton, Mr.. Editor, and let no man flatter
himself with the idea that the people are
not fully informed upon it, and fearful
" in earnest, in their condemnation of
this robbery of their legal rights, by those
w he chOCpO To rrntQpt an6 HnfpnH
them. A fig for your tribunal gentle
men We denounce and repudiate 1t,
as unconstitutional, illegal and a base
fraud upon our rights-as a political
FEwhat- is-it," the members of which have
no oath 70 violate, or precedent, or law,
to guide or bind them.
| assert, without fear Of contradiction,
by the decision af competent tribunal,
(which must be court legally and prop
erIy consUituted) that the amendments to
our constitution, adopted in 1860, are not
unconstitutiOnal-the Pioneer Press to
the contrary Notwithstanding. No one
claims that the expunging of the amend
ment 10 section 10 Of article 9 of the con-
stitation, known to old settlers as the
GIVE million loan bill" affected, or rem
dered less valid, the bonds issued there
1Io O'1OOht Pun pOoC was oO PFC
vent, by any possibility, the further issue
of those bonds. SO much for that amend
ment.
The amendment to section 2, article 8,
requiring amy law levyiig tax or max
ing other provisions for the payment of
interest or principal of the bonds' to be
submitted to the people land which is the
one the validity of which the commission
is to pass upon), is in no way "a law i'm
pairing the obligation OF a contract"
What obligation on the part of the State
to the bondholders did it impair? Pre-
vious to its passage the bondholders
could not enforce the payment of these
bonds, any more than they can now. The
State could not be sued then any
more than it can now. The
bonds could not, under the constitution,
before the amendment, be paid unless the
people, through their representatives,
made provision for their payment. Their
payment could not be made without sub
sequent legislation; and it was left for
these bondholders and their paid advo-
Gates to claim that it is not competent
for the people to provide by the constitu-
ton that any law, or class of laws, shall