Daily globe., 1881-09-11
For the Full Amount of the Old Rail-
road Bonds.
THE BOND TRIBUNAL SMASHED
And Writ of Prohibition Ordered to
Issue.
THE LEGISLATURE THE BODY
Which Has the Power and the Duty of
Settlement. |E

its decision in the suit brought for a
writ of prohibition to prevent the bond
tribunal provided by the legislature Of
last winter from acting. The court unan-
imously grant the writ on the ground
that the act constituting the bond tribu-
nal is unconstitutional, but at the same
time declare the constitutional amend
ment of 1860 unconstitutional. The 1860
amendment required any act for the pay
ment of the bonds to be submitted to the
people. Under this decision that proviso
has been wiped out and it is now in the
power and becomes the duty of the legis-
lature to provide for the payment of the
bonds.
The following is the decision in full:
Supreme Court, Special Term, 1SS1-The State
OF Minnesota eX rel. the Attorney General,
Relator, vs.. Austin H Young, John H
Brown, Francis NJ. Crosby, Hascal R. Brill
and Martin J. Severance, Respondents.
Syllabus-The amendment to section Q,
article 9, of the constitution of this State,
adopted November 6, 1881, providing that
ssno law levying a tax or max
ing other provisions for the payment of in
terest or principal of the bonds denominate0
Minnesota State Railroad Bonds shall take
effect or be IN force until such law shall have
been submitted to a vote of the people of the
State and adopted by majority of the elect
orsn of the State, voting upon the same, i'm
pairs the obligation of the contracts therein
referred to, and is consequently repugnant to
the clause in the constitution of the United
States, that no State shall pass any law impair
ing the obligation OF contracts, and it is there
fore void.
The act of the legislature of this State, en-
titled "An act providing for the adjustment
of the \. .innesota State railroad bonds" ap-
proved March 2, 1881, delegates the judges
therein mentioned legislative power-that is,
power by the decision they are called on to
make to determine which of the two sections,
section or section of the act, shall take
effect and be the law, and it is therefore void.
A peremptory writ of prohibition must issue.
Supreme Court Special Term, 1SS1-The State
of Minnesota, ex rel. the Attorney General,
relator, VS.. Austin H. Young, John H.
Brown, Frarcls NJ. Crosby, Hascal R. Brill
and Martha j. Severance, respondents.
April Is, 1858, the people of Minnesota
adopted an amendment to the constitution,
providing for the loan to certain railroad COM
panies OF bonds of the State, to be denomi-
mated Minnesota State railroad bonds, to the
amount of five million dollars. They were
to be payable to the order of the company
to whom issued, transferable by the
endorsement of the president of the
company, and redeemable at any time
after ten and before the expiration of twenty
five years from the date thereof and were to
bear interest at the rate of per cent. per
annum The faith and credit of the State
were, in express terms, pledged for the pay
ment of the interest and the redemption of the
principal thereof. The amendment contained
provisions for each company, securing the
State and making provision for punctual pay
ment and redemption of the bonds, in such
manner as to exonerate the treasury of the
State from any advances OF money for that
purpose These provisions for security Ope-
rated only as between the State and the compa-
nies to whom the bonds were to be issued, and
and were not intended to affect the relations
between the State and those who may become
holders of the bonds by endorsement, as in the
amendment provided. To those persons the
promise of the State to pay was to be abso-
lutte, creating between the State and them
the relation of debtor and creditor.
This was so decided and it was
the principal point involved, decided in
Chamberlain VS.. st. Paul d Sioux City Rail-
road company, 81, .. s. 249. A large amount
of the bonds were issued pursuant to the
amendment, when the companies having aban-
doned further performance of the conditions
on which the bonds were to be issued, the fur
ther issue of the bonds was suspended. This
assumed that some if not all of the bonds is
sued were passed by endorsement to third per-
sons so as to become operative as contracts OF
the State TO pay. For the purpose of this de-
cision it is assumed that such bonds were le-
gally issued for no question of validity of any
equity of the State against them is made in the
proceeding. After the default companies to
perform the conditions in the amendment i'm
posed in them and after it had become man
ifest that all intention to proceed with such
performance was definitely abandoned by the
companies, the people of the State on No
vember Z, 1860, by a large vote adopted two
amendments to the constitution proposed to
them by the legislature, one of them eXpung-
ing from the constitution the amendment of
April IS, 1855, excepting and reserving to the
State, nevertheless, all rights, remedies
and forfeiture accruing under said amend
ment.'' The other amendment was in these
words 'But no law levying tax or making
other provisions for the payment of interest
or principal of the bonds denominated Mime
sofa State Railroad bonds' shall take effect
or be in force until such law shall have
been submitted to vote of the people of the
State and adopted by majority of the of the
electors of the State voting upon the same.
March z, 1881, the legislature passed an act,
the general purpose of which was to adjust,
with the consent of the holders, the
bonds outstanding, by taking them up and
issuing in lieu of them new bonds of the State
for fifty per cent. of the amount which ap-
peared by their terms to be due upon them.
A notable feature of this act is that section 4
proposes the issue of the new bonds
without the submission to the
vote of the people and section 5proposes it to
be submitted to vote of the people, to be is
sued only upon their approval, and it is lef
to the judges of the supreme court or in case
they should decline to act, to an equal num-
Der of judges OF the district court to deter
mine whether helegislature have power with
out submitting it to the people to make the
contemplated adjustment, the bonds to be
issued pursuant TO section 4, or the propo-
sition to be submitted to the people pursuant
to section 5, according as the judges should
determine the question submitted to them
The judges of the supreme court decIi ined to
act and the governor called the respondents
judges of the district court to act in their
stead. The attorney general, on behalf of the
State, now applies to this court for the writ
of prohibition to restrain the respondents
from proceeding i'll the matter.
The writ of prohibition issues usually to
courts to keep them within the limits of their
Jurisdictions But it may also issue to an
officer to prevent the unlawful exercise of
judicial or quasi judicial power, and the other
reasons for 1t existing, we see none why it
should not issue to a person or body of per-
sons not being IN law a court nor strictly off,
GERS. As if the legislature should assume in
an unconstitutional manner to create q court