Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1881-08-03
THE BOND BATTLE
MOTHER DAY OF ARGUMENT, And
A LITTLE PROGRESS MADE.

Hon. Daniel Buck Argues That the Tri-
bunal is a Court and Hence Was illegally
Constituted---Hon. Gordon e. Cole Ar
CUES That 1t Is Board OF Arbitration
and Sustained by Many Precedents.
At the sitting of the supreme court yester-
day morning Hon. Daniel Buck continued the
argument for the State on the attorney gen
erals application for writ of prohibition di-
| rected to the bond commission organized by
| and under the act of last winter. .,si a,..
HON. DANIEL BUCKS POINTS.
| Mr.. Buck in opening said he would discuss
only one question and while he might seem in
some measure to differ from his associates in
| his line of argument, yet he would reach the
same result as they. He took for his theme the
assertion in the original REALTORS affidavit, as
elaborated in The eleventh paragraph of their
pleadings, that none of the judges of the SUI
preme court were disqualified from sitting on
| the bond commission, and advanced the pro-
| position that the act of last winter was leg
| islative attempt to constitute the supreme
court tribunal for deciding the bond ques-
| ton submitted by the act. In the sense used
in the act tribunal" was the same as 'scourt, -
and that it was so understood by the legisla-
| ture is apprent from the use of the word court
instead of tribunal in the fifth section, while
the natural construction of the law is that the
supreme court was intended. No court could
be legally created for one special
object b r or, case; yet here was
proposed the gravest judicial power ever con-
| ferred upon any tribunal in this State. He
did not believe the legislature could have in
tended to confer such powers upon an infe-
rior tribunal. To believe it would be to be-
| lieve that the legislature intended, upon the
certificate of clerk, bound by no oath or
| bond, to the action of commission not bound
by oath or bond, to allow 100000 to be
| taken from the State treasury. 1t would be
to believe that the legislature deliberately con-
ferred gravest powers of judicial action upon
court which cannot issue a proc SIS or en-
force its commands.
His theory being that the supreme court
was intended, he had to refer to section 3, ar
tice6 of the constitution, prescribing that
when judges of the supreme court are dis
qualified district judges are to be selected to
| fill their places. But the constitution does not
mean that the court can he filled at wholesale
1t provides for selection of judge or judges
to fill the place of the one or more disqual-
fed. What one has been substituted in place
of the chief justice, of Justice Berry, of Jus.
tice Mitchell or of Justice Clark? And why
the bond tribunal? Locking over the letters
of your honors, in evidence here, there is
nothing to show disqualification. Justice
Clark says the tribunal should be made up of
Judges of the supreme court at the time of
its meeting, which was July rs. Justice
Dickinson was a member here before that but
was not invited to sit. 1t cannot be- claimed
any one has been legally substituted for him.
There can be only one path of delegating
al NV {hoa ~
be justified by the constitution, by strict reg
ularlty and by law. The declination of the
supreme court does not constitute disqualif-
cation authorizing the appointment of district
judges. Mere inconvenience is not disquali-
fication, and whatever reasons are generally
applicable to this court, are also applicable to
the substituted judges. Your honors did not
decline for any of the reasons prescribed by
the statute as disqualifications.
And if this tribunal is attempting to act as
officers should not the rule apply that delegate
power be restricted. What right has the Gov
ernor to appoint them without compliance
with the prerequisites of the act. Or, if
| they are not judges of the supreme court,
then what do we meet? Are they officers,
| or acting in an official capacity. or
an official body? if the
answer is in the affirmative that ends the mat
| ter, for judges can hold no other than a judi
|
| And if they are not of the. supreme court, nor
| officers within the meaning of the constitu-
! tional limitation, they are not officers under
| the law, and we have the startling proposition
| that the constitution may be torn to pieces by
body having no judicial or official position
and bound by no oaths.
Individually 1 would be willing to waive all
these things and go to the merits of the ques-
lions behind them. We challenge the other
- oil
nationality of the law and the validity of the
constitutional amendment. For many years
it has been asserted by the other side that we
dare not come into court and there submit our
cause. We are in court now and we challenge
them to meet all the questions which have
been raised here.
HON. GORDON E. COLES OPENING.
With Mr. Bucks presentation of his point,
the opening for the State was concluded and
it was stated that Hon. D. A. Secombe,
attorney for Citizen Secombe, would follow
Hon Gordon E. Cole, who then began the
opening argument for the commission and
the bondholders. Mr.. Cole opened by saying
in reply to Mr.. Bucks closing sentence:
'We accept the challenge in the full intent
and meaning of the term
After speaking of the magnitude of the
question, the Importance of the contest and
the fact that large and influential portion of
our own people agree with the
general opinion of the world
regarding Minnesota's treatment of the
holders of her bonds, he said: "The time has
at last come, after years of effort, when COM
mission is about to sit, to- pass upon the
States obligation and, it is hoped, to wipe out
this perennial disgrace of reputation. The
obligations are collected, the owners have
signed the agreement proposed by the State,
and the opportunity is given to wipe out these
obligations for nominal portion of their
face value"
He disclaimed the honor of paternity of the
law in question. More credit should be given
to the clear and active brain of his associate,
Mr.. Gilman. Others assisted in prep
aratn and finally it was the
result of a sort of evolution in which
Senator Buck and Judge Wilson had aided, by
their opposition in the legislature and in com
mittee, where they had taught the friends OF
the measure how to meet the various points
they suggested against the law.
After complimenting the attorney general,
saying he never heard a more able presenta-
tiOn of case, he added: "But his batteries
were discharged at a tribunal where third par
ties are interested That was their mistake,
that our friends have argued from plane
where the law and the case at bar does not
stand. For the State, as borrower, dropped
her plumes of sovereignty.
Outside of The restraining influence of the
amendment of 1860 (and in the earlier branches
of his argument he would consider the matter
as if that amendment did not exist orwas a
conceded nullity), the legislature is to be re-