The Canton advocate. [volume] (Canton, D.T. [S.D.]) 1877-1897, 1881-09-22
Minnesota Debt,

ST. IAuL oept. lf.-lne supreme
court made public to-day the most i'm
portant decision ever rendered in Min
nesota. 1t was upon an application for
an injunction to prohibit the tribunal
for the adjustment of the disputed debt,
formed last winter, to sit. The ground
of the application is the constitutional
amendment of 1860, providing that no
payment of the bonds shall ever be
made without submission of the ques-
ton to a popular vote. After review
ing the act of 1881 and the amendment
of 1860, the court says: The writ of pro-
hibitions issues usually to courts to
keep them within the limits of their
jurisdiction, but it may issue to an Off
Ger to pr .cof:s'ta unlawful exercise of
judicial or quasi judicial power. The
exercise of unauthorized judicial or
quasi judicial power is regarded as a
contempt of the sovereign which may
result in injury to the state or citizens.
These things are essential to justify the
writ. First, because that the court Off
Ger or person is about to exercise Judi
cial or quasi judicial power; second that
the exercise of such power by such per-
son or court is unauthorized by law;
third, that it will result in injury for
which there is no adequate remedy.
The act Of March 9, 1881, does not at
tempt to confer on the respondents ju-
dicial power in the strict sense of the
term. 1t submits to their decision a
judicial question, and although their
decision on it could not have the au-
thoritative and binding force of court
of justice, yet the act provides for car
rying it into effect as though it were
binding, giving it a quasi judicial oper-
alton. That injury to the state and
citizens will result is apparent from
the fact that such result will be the
issue of involved obligations of the
state to the amount of millions of dol
lars. Except this writ there exists no
judicial remedy for the threatened evils.
If the act is void, and so confers no au-
thority on the respondents, the writ
must issue. The basis of the applica-
ton is the propositi n that the act of
March 2, 1881, is unconstitutional and
void, only two reasons of which on
account of their superior importance
we think it necessary to consider.
First, because it is contrary to the
amendment to the constitution of Nov.
6, 1860. to the effect that no law levying.
tax or making other provisions for
payment of the bonds shall take effect
till approved by vote of the electors
of the st te, and, second, because it is
an attempt to give the judges legisla-
tive power, inasmuch as it leaves It for
them to determine whether section 4
or section 5 Of the act shall be law. In
answer to the first the respondents urge
that the amendment of 1860 referred
to is itself void because repugnant to
the constitution of the United States.
A more important and difficult ques-
ton has rarely ever come before a
court in this country. Courts always
regard it a matter of great delicacy to
pass on the validity of an act of the leg
islature. 1t is much more so when the
validity of a constitution adopted by
the people of a state is called in ques-
ton; yet, when law for a state is al.
legged to be contrary to some clause in
the constitution of the United States,
it is immaterial whether it was passed
by the legislature or by the people in
the constitution for themselves.
The decision then goes on at great
length to discuss the above proposition,
and finally reaches the conclusion that
the act of 1860, known as the expung-
ing amendment, is unconstitutional and
void, as it conflicts with the provision
of the United States constitution relat.
ing to the impairment of contracts.
The second and third points, declaring
the act of March 2 unconstitutional.
and ordering the writ of prohibition te
issue, are discussed at great length.
The whole decision covers about 100
folios. Its great length prevents even
q brief synopsis, but the following is
stiiillnary, which will be found to EN-
brace all the material points. and is, in
fact, an abbreviated syllabus Of the decis-
ion: First, that the constitutional a.
of 1860, requiring the
question of the payment of the railroad
bonds to be submitted to the people at
q general election, etc., it is void, be-
cause it impairs the obligation of the
contract between the state and the
bondholders; second, that the act of
March 2 last, providing for the adjust
ment of railroad bonds, is unconstitu-
tional and void, because it delegates to
the tribunal created thereby legislative
power; third, that the writ of prohibit
ion to restrain the tribunal from acting
as prayed. The act Of last
winter is thus rendered entirely mop
erative, and the matter of adjustment
of the bonds relocated to future legisla-
lures. The decision is understood to
have been unanimous. The decision,
though it quarters the tribunal estab-
lished for the settlement Of the debt
upon basis af so cents on the dollar,
as agreed with the bondholder, last
winter, is regarded as victory for the
debt-paying forty-seven. 1t distinctly
empowers future legislatures to pay the
debt without submission to a popular
vote.
England and the Yorktown Affair.
The London Standard says: Nor did
the surrender of CORVALLIS at York:
town end the war; it was the beginning
of the end. England was weary of
the struggle. though many, like the