Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1881-09-11

contrary to the then instructions Of the pal
ties, the State and the receivers of the bonds
and it is also clear that it impaired the obligs
ton of the contract by taking away the
existing remedy without giving an equal
efficient one instead We are relieved IN IN
case from any necessity to consider how far
State may go, and to what extent remedle
may be rendered less Rspeedy or convenient
when upon considerations of public polio.
and expediency, and consulting the genera
public good, it changes its laws or Its consti
tuition, or mode of administering It's govern
ment The power to make such changes iron
such motives, even though they incidentall,
affect existing contracts OF the State or lndl
viduals, may be conceded.
But any supposed advantage TO the State o
repudiating IFS debts, or of obstruct
ing its creditors in respect to their payment
can never be admitted as a consideration oil
public policy, or expediency, or OF good t
the public which will justify change. II
might, it would apply equally TO all state con
tracts, executory or executed, and indeed 10 al
contracts between individuals and the claim
in the federal constitution, and thus be sue
cessfully evaded. 1t is apparent upon the face
of this amendment that the only motive oper
ating in its adoption was the intent to affect
these bonds. If the effect OF .the amendment
was to prevent or postpone, or obstrnct theil
payment, that, and no consideration of general
public policy, was the motive OF its adoption.
1t must therefore stand or fail according as
it affects injuriously or not, the contracts
mentioned in it. And it can get no aid from
any right of a State to change It's laws, or the
mode of administering its government.
That it was intended as check upon the
payment OF the bonds, not merely as re-
straint upon payment before they should
fall due, but payment at all, cam
not be questioned. Else, why disable
the ordinary legislative department to provide
in any way for their payment, while full legis-
lative authority was left TO it with respect to
every other obligation of the State All legis-
lative power over the matter of their payment
was stripped from the legislature. The mere
power 10 propose for the electors to adopt or
reject law providing for their payment, Is
not legislative. 1t might be as well entrusted
to the executive.
That it had the effect intended to check and
obstruct payment has passed into the history
of the State. That such was its natural, in
deed its inevitable result, we think no one
could deny. 1t was because such would be
the natural effect of it that it was adopted
The idea of remedy in the hands of any one
but the aggrieved party, implied the right to
make application TO the body, or person in
whose power the remedy is to set it in mo-
ton. Thus judicial remedy necessarily in
cludes the right to apply to court and show
reasons why the remedy should be made avail
able.
And legislative remedy, or one within the
power of the legislature, includes the right in
the party entitled to it, to present his case to
that body and demand its action in
his behalf. Il requires no argument to show
that such right Is of value, for the applica-
ton of the remedy may depend upon it. To
take away the right, or what would be the
same in effect, to deprive him OF an opportu-
10 oip1u off ~
ously the value and efficiency of his remedy.
1t may be assumed that with the same OPP
portunity in the bondholders to fully present
their claims to the people, and in the people
to properly investigate, deliberate upon and
decide the justice of the claims, the people
would grant the relief to which the holders
were entitled, as readily as the legislature
would.
When the bonds were issued the holder had right
to apply for relief to the legislature, and there
no difficulty in the way of exercising the right.
The legislature is small in numbers, select; its
members supposed to be chosen for their intell1-
gepce, integrity and ability to deal with questions
coming before such body; deliberative its pro-
ceedings conducted according to established rules;
responsible, for every member is sworn to do his
manner in which he performs it; acting openly 60
that everyone may know how such member performs
his duty; having stated times and stated place for
meeting, SO that every man may know when and
where it is to be found together with power to send
for persons and papers, 70 take evidence and ascer
tain facts, resembling that possessed by court of
justice; and having the opportunity when all as
sembled to hear arguments, to deliberate and reason
together of what the State ought in right to do in
any case before them.
But the people are dispersed throughout the
State; they never be brought together to act
deliberate body. They investigate, reach concu-
sions and act by established rules, each ind vdua
being in those matters law unto himself, and for
his action responsible to no cne and each voting by
secret ballot.
They are unable to resort to the methods pertain
ing to court legislature to ascertain the facts
and unable to reason together as q body upon any
claim against the State.
An opportunity to present TO the people action
against the State and apply to them for relief IN fact
does not and cannot exist and the right 10 do is
present his and apply for relief to such separ-
ate individuals of the people as he may be able to
reach.
The right of the bondholders to apply
for recognition of their claims and
for redress, SO fsr as it available
and eficscious right practically taken away
The value and efficiency of the remedy was thus
lessened.
Suppose, when the bonds were issued, it had been
expressed in the constitution and repeated in the
bonds that no law levyng tax, or making other
provision for payment of their interest principal
should take effect until submitted tn and adopted by
the people in popular election, can any one believe
that they would have been of equal value in the
financial markets with bonds, the power and duty to
provide for paying which was in the legislature?
The amendment necessarily diminished the value of
the bonds by rendering their payment less certain.
We conclude. therefore, that it may be regarded
entering into the contract, that the power and
duty vested in and imposed upon the legislature at
the time the bonds were issued to provide by taxa
ton or otherwise for their payment, should con-
tinue and be exercised and also that such power
and duty in the legislature was remedy, which
could not be taken away without providing another
equally efficient.
The amendment of November 6, 1880, taking
away the power of the legislature 70 provide for
payment Of the bonds is in violation of this con-
tract, and lessons the efficiency of the remedy.
1t is therefore repugnant to the constitution of
the United states, and void.
Being void it cannot affect the validity of the act
of March 2, 1881.
For it is still Ia the power spd is still the duty Of
the legislature to provide for payment Of the bonds
The objection that the act Of March @ 1884, attempts
to delegate legislative power requires reference to
Several sections of the act to ascertain what is
to their decision, and what is made to depend upon
their decision: ss.e
Section 9 constitutes the judges of the |
supreme court tribunal (the places of |
those judges disqualified or declining to |
act to be filed, provided in section 8, by the gov
ernor appointing judges of the district COURTS to
hear consider and determine the matter submitted
judges shall hear arguments, determine ard decide
whether the legislature has power to provide for the
payment, adjustment or settlement of the liabih- |
ty of the State on said Minnesota railroad bonds
without submitting the matter to vote of the cleo
tors of the State. Notwithstanding the amendment
to section 2, article of the constitution, adopted
November 6, $780, SIT appoints time and place for
clerk of the supreme court" Section 4provides |
hiatt the of the cor1rt conn tha dace;on