Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1881-08-12

legislature could deprive itself of that right
by contract may be doubted. But the State
made no such contract by the constitutional
amendment of 1858. Remember, too, it was
the people, as the State and in their sovereign
capacity, who entered into this contract. Be-
fore that we had a constitutional inhibition
of the State debt exceeding $3.50, 900. (Reading
the loan amendment.) Observe that the payee
couldn't enforce against the maker = that
the bonds were made as an accommodation
loan to the payees Now, bear in mind, that
when the bonds issued it was we'll settled by
the courts that the holders of States prom
Use to pay had no power of enforcement, no
remedy, nothing but the mere appeal to the
honor and consistency of the State. (Reading. J
The contract is that the companies shall make
provision for punctual payment of both prin-
cciple and interest. These were the conditions
on which the bonds were delivered
to these companies. The contract goes on
to say that the State may provide for payment
in case of default of the companies by settings
the property of the companies. Every men,
Der of the legislature who joined in propoeng
this amendnsent-this cOntract-to the people,
Joined in a certificate which was circulated all
over the State before the vote was had, saying
they had made it impossible for the State to
be ever held for dollar. Further, the pay
ments by the companies were to anticipate the
coming due of interest and principal, so that
the State in case of default could enforce pay
ment.
What further was the constitution at date of
this contract? [Sec. 2, art. O.. That 'the leg
islature shall provide for an annual tax suffi-
cient to defray the estimated expenses of the
pen that such ordinary ex-
penses of the State" etc. After
wards the word ''ordinary'' was inserted
after "estimated expenses" but without that
word as the context show the taxing power
of the legislature was limited to the ordina-
ry expenses of the State.
Mr.. Gilman-Judge Dillon has held in sew
eral cases that the ordinary expenses Of the
State include the interest on its public debt.
Mr.. wilson, will show that in this case it
did not include any such thing. The maxi
mum debt of the State was not to exceed
S250,0O0. [Sec. 5, art. 81 and that could not
be contracted without q two-thirds vote of
each branch of the legislature. 1t cannot
therefore be said that it was implied when
the State made the constitutional amendment
of 1858, that it contracted a debt of five mil
lion dollars, with interest, $3.50, 900 year, on
which the legislature couldn't reiqure securi-
nor can it be said that the
legislature can provide for its
payment or any part as now proposed, in new
bonds, by less than a two-thirds vote. That
was in the constitution when the contract was
made and is there now, and is in the contract.
Further, there is nothing in the contract or
elsewhere TO show that the State may not re-
quire any guarantee it sees fit that outside IN
fuences shall not sway the legislature in this
matter,
/ ask your honor's attention to the fact that
only the faith and credit of the State was
pledged. The Legislature had very little to do
with the contract; is not its faith and credit
that is pledged. Have not yet the bondhold-
ers the faith and credit of the State-just what
we agreed? The trouble is they don't want
the faith and credit of the State, bnt some
thing else. Now the constitutional amend
ment of 1860 recognizes the power and duty
of the Slate to make provision for
payment of the bonds, but when it
is done requires that is shall be submitted to
the people-the State. If the people refuse it
is simply evidence that one party refuses to
fulfil the letter of The contract. The refusal
of the people to vote and not the amendment,
if anything, is breach of the faith and
credit of the State. Suppose that the people
1T the next election after the amendment had
voted to pay, who then would have dared to
say the amendment was violation of the con
tract. Isn't 1t true that the violation is in the
refusal of the people to vote to pay the
bouds?
The people are the State. If the expression
by the people be less favorable to the bondhold-
ers than would be an expression by the legisla-
ture, it is probable the latter would not ex-
press the will of the State. Had or have the
the will of the people? Not only had
the State the right to insist on this
butt the bondholdersi had reason to expect
some such guarantee would be required by
the State. Suppose constitutional amend
ment had been passed saying that no law rec
ognizing or providing for the bonds could be
passed by less than two-thirds vote of each
branch of the legislature. That being part
of the constitution at the time of the con-
tract who could have said it was not neces-
sary and proper? Who can now say that
clause more stringent would be improper or
unnecessary?
l admit we cannot impair the contract at ALL
Mr.. Gilman said the laws in existence at the
time became a part of the contract. That
being so, we could not have changed our laws
at all, notwithstanding the people thought
it prudent to have guarantees. / claim
no one has right to say the State
bound itself not to do what its organic law
showed it had the right to do at the time. Ii
was at liberty TO adjust this contract in any
way it saw fit. 1t did not trust the legisla-
ture to make the contract and would not trust
it to adjust the same. Even if we take their
argument their objection would not apply.
The amendment is as to levying a tax and rails
ing money. Their law here is trade and decker
for issue of new bonds. There is nothing to
show it wouldn't be competent to prohibit
this. But it seems to me clear the State had
the right and it was just and proper to make
this constitutional amendment of 1860.
But counsel says 1t delayed the payment Of
interest. Remember that two years had
passed before this amendment was adopted.
The Legislature had made provision
for the interest because it would
not. The amendment was by
the legislature proposed and submitted to the
people. Nothing had been done by the legis-
latnre up to that time. In 1861 the legislature
might have submitted proposition for pay
ment to the people which would have been
if at all in time for the.next tax levy
So there was no delay on account of the
amendment. Under the amendment the legs-
lature could at any time since have SUBJ
mi tied a law covering all payments, without
delay of taxation.
No, their objectionn to this amendment is
that under it it is impossible to secure law