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

y
day morning, to try the application OF D. A.
secombe for writ prohibiting the bond COM
mission from acting under the Legislative
act of last winter, there was present, besides
the counsel of parties, some twenty members
of the bar as spectators and listeners. The
counsel present were Mr.. Secombe, the re-
lator, appearing for himself, Messrs. Cole,
Gilman and Sanborn, appearing for the COM
mission and the bondholders, and the attorney
ing on behalf of the State.
The chief justice having announced that the
court was ready to hear the matter, and coun-
sci having stated that they were
READY TO PROCEED,
Mr. Cole SAID that he and his associates
were instructed to appear on b half of
the bond comm ssion, and show cause why
the writ of prohibition should not be granted
and he tnereupon read the return, pub
lished in the GLOBE Of Wednesday last. Read
ing of the objections to action by the CON-
mission, as made by the attorney general be-
fore the commission, and by the commission
made part of its return to the order to show
cause, was omitted.
THE ATTORNET GENERALS REQUEST.
the court, saying he felt it his duty to ask to
have complete control of the present proceed
ing. 1t was made his duty by the very act
under which the commission was organized
to represent the interests of the State, and he
presented the question whether he, as repre-
sentative of the State, should have control, or
some one else whose action might prejudice
the States interests in the matter.
The Chief Justice-Do you ask to be admit
ted to the proceedings?
Mr.. Hahn-I ask that if anything is done
here in this matter 1 shall have control of the
procedure as to this application for a writ of
prohibition.
sECOMBE EXPLAINS AND OBJECTS.
Mr.. Secombe said that an explanation
seemed to be necessary. A week ago he saw
the attorney general, who then said he did not
intend to apply for writ of prohibition, but
such an application would not interfere with
his plans. Relator then informed the attOr-
ney general that he would make such applica-
ton, and requested him to appear for the
State IN the matter. The application was
made but, for reasons not necessary to state,
held back until Monday last. RelatOr that day
notified the attorney general and again re-
quested him to take part in the argument of
! the question. This is the first intimatioh,
Mr. Secombe said, have had that the attor-
| ney general desired to take the case into his
own hands and out of mine. l will say further,
that he said that after his plea to the jurisdic-
ton of the bond tribunal-that plea being
| overruled-he intended to apply for writ of
prohibition. trust the attorney general will
consent that we 60 on as agreed, to-
gether. 1 suppose it is COM
petent for any taxpayer to make this
application, and if he chooses to appear for
himself and represent his fellow tax payers, it
| is his right. suggest to the attorney gener-
| al that we 60 on, but 1 shall insist upon my
| standing in the case.
MR.. HAHN REPLIES.
Mr.. Hahn said the counsel was mistaken in
number of points. He had tried to induce
the counsel to wait until the arrival of his as
sociates, and he had consulted them. We did
have consultation Monday, and requested
Mr.. Secombe to wait until the proper time
after the court [commission] had passed on
| its own jurisdiction. But that is a personal
matter. If Mr.. Secombe or any other taxpay-
er may employ counsel and take control of
procedures in this matter of the bonds, your
honors can see how the interests of the State
may be jeopardized. 1t is for that reason we
ask that this matter be considered under con-
troll of the attorney general.
After some consultation by the court the
chief justice asked: Is this merely an appli-
cation to be heard?
MR. WILSON'S ARGUMENT.
Mr.. Wilson, remarking that he appea red at
the request of the attorney general, said the
attorney generals application was that he
have control of this proceeding, the State be-
ing interested, and the act of the legislature
making it his duty to represent the States in
terests, 1t was suggested, he said, to MIR.
he of the interests of the State ra.
quired different procedure from this, as to
tint and other conditions. His answer,
though courteously worded, was, in effect, l
don't choose TO have it so. If this goes ON,
as now, Mr.. Secombe will present the matter
as he proposes. If any one differs from Mr..
Secombe as to how the case should be con-
Quoted so much the worse for that one
Hence the question is whether the State or
any taxpayer may have control of the pro-
cedure, wherein the action had may prejudice
the interests of the State. Except the State
can control the matter, any other taxpayer,
and SO on every other taxpayer, might follow
Mr.. Seccmbe's example Perhaps he has right
to institute this proceeding just as any man
may institute a prosecution for murder, but
the law says who shall represent the State. 1t
was suggestive of possible complications that
before the commission the other day the emf
nent counsel for the bondholders were cO-ope-
rating with Mr.. Secombe against the attorney
general. Again, taxpayer. cannot enjOin
public nuisance. He can appear to represent
his own injury, but not for the State or COM
munity. Referring to what he called the only
exceptions in rulings of this State, and citing
the case of Hodgman, of Red Wing, he said
there the situation was different. 1t was before
the bonds were issued and in anticipation of
the fact that after the bonds were issued and
in the hands of innocent third parties there
would be no remedy Chief Justice DEMO
Q8th N. W discussed at length the evil con-
sequences which would result # any taxpayer
might represent the public, In place of the at
torney general. The question here is whether
the relator may say to the attorney general,
you may assist in the course mark out or
else retire.
1t is the particular desire of the attorney
general and those who assist him, If we do
get before the court, to proceed with this
case upon it's merits. It is well known the
attorney general had prepared to. take this
step at the proper time, if ever necessary. 1t
is his duty-it is TOurs-tO take action neces-
sary for protecting the interests of the State.
But it is safe to presume that the bond trlbu
nal will decide correctly for Itself the question
of its jurisdiction. We are ready to show by
authority that it is not competent to bring
this question now, and the attorney general
fears that this procedure will go off on some
technicalty mot on the merits of the case. We
are ready to show that the court should not
issue its writ of prohibition to the inferior
court until that court has passed upon.its ju-
risdichon. e5f
Mr.. Secombe objected to the counsel's APP
Dearancp in this case remark inc that he shou1d