, 1881-09-11
The Supreme Court Prohibits
Calling Of the Proposed
Tribunal.
1t Declares the Repuliatory Gone
stitutional Amendment Null
ard Void.
The Legislature Can Make Arrangements
to Pay the Bonds at Any Time.
10 Popular Tote Directly on The Matter Of Pay
mtnt Will Be Allowed.
Soeetar DJpufch TO The Cafedet GSteuns.


sr p.r1 N,un.. Sem. 1o.-The Supreme
cour, ,,,,o,- rendered ~ unanimous decision in
,xhicb ,hev sertIe TWO orei:mincnt ana principal
questions In regard to tho Minnesota State rail-
road bonds. First, they hold that tho question
nrcsentcd RI them Il. nrimurfly. whether a writ
Of prohibition to restrain tho tribunal created
by the law Of lust winter from action. They say
thew are first met By the objection that the :sct
Of last winter il void because the constitutional
amendment Of 1850, declaring that ITO provision
shall ever be made for the payment OF the State
railway bonds without submission to the pco-
pic, prohibited tho Legislature from passing the
acr in question. which was u measure MAXIM.
r,.o,.;s,a, r,r t,,o nnvmo,t The validity or the
PROVISION 1or tno las uleas- Liz '''9A>' - >1o
amendment OF lstU IS thus
DIRECTLY INVOLVED.
1t valid, it withdrew from the Legislature tho
power to make provision 1os tne paStneut oa t11o
bonds. while II void OF course II coulo lntorposs
tha+ - ;,,no ;ra rho ohtv,tion or cnp,racts. and
s- ;s Il, xiof,, ,ion of scc n or ART Of the Con-
stitution of tho United sta tcs. A contract OF
s.s. - ~ o,+-.a+ .1,htr .ha
tuls cAataetct - n"" :" ~o.s'
meaning OF the claslsc o1 the Ohlteu states eot1-
stitution, because there Is no judicial remedy
for its enforcement. The Court refers to rns
pFcpostesous consequences VI uotu.n. -1a ms. uso
hundreds OF millions OF state bonus 10 e1lstenee =
hx t,,0 ,cris1ot;on eG % because no judicial rene
~ 'se'7". .t rha..
dy eIlsie0- io1 taoii enAotee""'' ~
tho Judges who we're contenporancous
with tho adoption of the Constitu ton neld that
the clause against impairins the Oblisa tion OF
contracts protected the executory contract OF
S,,tos ann snys tl1ut M decision since that tine
49,, e,,r hol, ,r ,,%;,,utc,, rho ,.onr rurv
"19 e'eA A~AA ~
ANALOGOUS CASES
Of m unicipal bonds are freely referred to. Tho
fou1t sees M distinction In principle between
-:,,..,,., ,,,,- jo u, rancottnr n law
"uat u tesi''"'"'s 'A.' " 49, F7 -
providing for municipal ta 1auon una one pro-
ydug for taxation directly by tho Legislature
t tho State to nay tho obligations ot the State
4 diffcrn1 goycrpmcntai department Is ir-
trusted with tue duty, but IL Is as tnuch IL duty
~ tf,a Ict-isiatCrc in the Que case a5 OF the
courts In tho otner Tho Court snen pro-
ceeds tn ,nnuire whether tho restruiut upon
tha ic.rislar,rt rcnuirinr IL submission to the
neone merely affects the rem cdy and concludes
1'saI ,sith.,ruy,nr rhe absolute p,wer from, the
Legislature aud prohibiting tnelr acuon Mt.n S.u.
our sote ol tno peolf; p,Ic,, - ;na ronrr,rf
with anu 1nlpa'fa LIZ oo14s'1eoA ~ .Ao
CASES ARE CITED
in support of this from decisions on municipal
mcpt thut the consent Of an additional! party to
fnfu Is nuil and void rs mpairinc the contruct
obligation. Having thus arrived ut the con-
ci11si0n that the constitutional amendment Is
void. the Court devotcs tho remniulug parr OF
tho opinion to showing that. as the
n1.r attempts to shift tho responsibility
Of deciding this question from the
Lccislnture which ought to have decided 1t, Il.