St. Paul daily globe., 1885-06-28
GETTING HOT.
The War Between Northern PACING
am6 the University Regents.

GETTING HOT.
The yyar Betxveen Northern Pacific
amd the University Regents.
The hearing on an order for the st. Paul q
Northern Pacific Railway company to sho"
cause why it should not be restrained from
proceeding further with the condemnation
of lands in East Minneapolis for rlght OF
way. came up at yesterdays special term IN
the district court before Judges Lochfen
and Koon. ,.,.,
d. NJ. Secombe attorney for the railroad,
made denial of the authority OF the re-
gents Of the university to bring such an ac-
ton in the courts. The university can act
only through the board OF regents as Dody,
and he denied that any meetings OF the
board had been held which had authorized
the bringing of any suit. Inc acnon Is
hronght to prevent the condemnation pro-
ceedings. the effect of which would be to
nerpetuallv restrain the building OF the
road. The university is public and not
private institution, and 10 private interest
should he allowed to interfere. No action
should be brought unless authorized by the
hoard of regents. and there has been no such
direction.
After consultation Judge Lochren stated
that it was not customary to require attor-
news TO prove their authority to act unless
there was an appearance of bad faith.
Mr.. Belden, one of the attorneys for the
university, claimed that the signing OF the
complaint by any one of the regents was
sufficient voucher of good faith.
Mr.. Secombe answered that the regents
had not acted in body, and offered to
prove that the bringing of the action had
not been authorized by the board.
Attorney General Hahn denied the offer
to prove, and his objection was sustained.
THE RAILROADS ANSWER.
Mr.. Secombe then read the complaint
and the answer by the railroad company,
in which it is denied that the plaintiff is or
was the owner of lots 4, 5, 6, Z, s, 13, IN
ST. Anthony, or that the lands were ac-
ouired by the regents of the university Tor
fhe purposes of the university. On the con-
trary. the plaintiff had purchased
lands in Ramsey county for an eX-
detrimental farm. and had erected buildings
thereon. 1t is denied that the defendant
has any knowledge that the plaintiff has
ever decided to locate an observatory on the
campus. 1t is denied also that the railroad
would materially injure or damage the prop
erty. 1t is alleged that after the petltlOn
for condemnation had been filed the board
of regents authorized the executive COM
mittee to sell the defendant any lots OF land
owned by the university. The executive
committee thereupon entered into negotla-
tions with the defendant for the sale OF GER
tain lots and the negotiations fell through
because of the inability to agree upon
price for the land. 1t was only because of
the failure to agree upon price that the
discovery was made that the railroad would
injure the university.
The separate answers of Commissioners
Camp. Robinson and Hayward were also
read, stating that their reports OF appralsalS
had been already filed with the clerk OF the
district court --
AFFIDAvITS SUBMITTED.
The affidavit of Prof. Paine of Carleton
college was next read by Mr.. SecOmbe, in
which he stated that he was acquainted
with the character of the university campus,
and believed that by reason of the smoke
from the cars of the Manitoba road, and
the consequent impurity of the atmosphere
in that locality, that there was no place on
the campus where an observatory could be
advantageously located.
Mr.. Belden offered the affidavit of John
S. Pillsbury in regard to the title of lots in
block 13, in answer to the defendants
denial that the university owned the prop
erty, and to show that the land had been
purchased for the university and held III
trust by Mr.. Pillsbury.
The admission of the affidavit was op-
posed by Mr.. Secombe, but the court al
lowed it.
A second affidavit of Gov. Pillsbury was
then offered and admitted by the court. In
it Mr. Pillsbury denied that any resolution
was passed in regard to the sale OF the
property. At the time the lots were dis
cuSsed the regents knew that they had the
light to oppose the railroad.
Mr.. Secombe stated that the affidavit of
Gov. Pillsbury
was false, and demanded the right to sub
nit the records of the meetings to prove it.
Mr.. Clark said this was not necessary, as
the acts of the regents do not affect the
question, but Mr.. Secomb urged his right to
bring the records into court. To save time
he was allowed to make a statement, the
understanding being that he should submit
the records to substantiate. He said that
the course of the university regents
AMOUNTED TO BLACKMAIL.
They had asked the railroad company to
pay S12, 900 more for certain lots than it
thought it could afford to, and threatened
to oppose the condemnation if the price was
not paid May 1. A meeting of the regents
was held, at which six were present: 1t was
panies and others be referred to the execu-
tive committee with power to act" May
they held another meeting, at which nothing
was said about the matter. Soon after the
proceedings had been commenced by the
railroad company another meeting was
held at which seven regents were present,
only three of whom had been in attendance
at the first meeting. Judge Clark, who
now appears as counsel, made motion to
correct the minutes by striking out ''the
sale of property" and substituting the
''matter of condemnation be put into the
hands of the executive committee" etc.
SUMMING UP.
Senator John Belden then made a lengthy
argument for the university, in which he
reiterated the various arguments which
have been urged against the condemnation
proceedings of the railroad.
He was followed by Judge Clark, who
said that they were not present to oppose
the railroad, but did oppose the building of
the road on particular line which will in
jure public institution. He claimed that
the states property cannot be taken except
by direct law authorizing certain terms.
He claimed that the public interests did not
require the building of the road on the par
ticular line mentioned. This is CONNER
cial age, but the public interests do not con-
siSt entirely of -four and freight cars. Is
this corporation greater than the state? Is
the creature greater than its creator?
Court here adjourned to s O'clock Monday
morning, when Mr.. Secombe will reply, A
decision will then be given.
THE FOREIGN FABERS.