St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1885-03-10
The Enormous Cost of Transportation
to Asylums and Peniten-
tiaries.
An Argument for the establishment Of More
Such Institutions in the
Territory.
Loyal Dakota BOOSTERS Who Grow in Con-
cert for President CIeve-
land.
GOV. PIERCE's VETO.

| Hon. George w Pierce, William s. Wells
and V. E. Prentice. The complaint, stripped
of legal verbiage, charges that on the 18th OF
March. at Bismarck, said parties corruptly
| and feloniously gave $1,000 to Melton L.
De Woody,a member of the legislature to in
fuence his vote in favor of removing the
capital from Bismarck to Pierre. The parties
were arrested. A. Melville appeared for
them and a continuance was granted until
p. IN. They were held in 1000 each, which
was promptly given.
The following is the full text of
THE VETO:
Executive Office, Bismarck, OAK, March
| 9, 19S5.-To the Speaker of the House
| of Represe natives = Sir: / have the
honor to return herewith house bill No.
| Z, which has been submitted to me for my
concurrence and approval. This bill pro-
| vides for the removal of the capital from the
! city of Bismarck to Pierre. If there are
questions of equity nvolved in this measure,
| will not now discuss them. If there is
something like retributive justice in the
measure growing out Of past wrongs-either
fancied or real-I do not here and now con-
slider them. pass by the question of ex
pense and taxation in the construction Of
new buildings in Pierre, l pass by the fact
that $4,000 worth of property now be long
ing to the territory is donated by
this act to private individuals, 1 pass by
| allegations of improperly and charges of
corruption which may have been made, to
come to the consideration of the one ques-
| ton:
rs THIS MEASURE LEGALs
We have taken an oath to support the
constitution Of the United States. Section
| 10 of article 1 of that constitution pro-
hibits the passage of any law impairing the
obligation of contracts. Is the arrangement
consummated between the agents of the last
| legislature as we'll as individuals within
the constitutional provisions Then
none of US can break it if we would, and
none would break it in violation Of our oaths
| if we could. In the case of Mills VS..
| Williams, page II, Ired los, Justice
Pearson declared that while there are some
grants conferred at the mere will of the leg
| slature and subject at all times to be modi-
! fed or repealed, there are others which as
sumo the nature of contracts and cannot be
molested. 1.-The Legislature" says the learned
| justice, ''is not the only party interested,
for although it has public purpose to ac-
complish it chooses to do it by the instru-
mentality OF a second party. These two
parties make a contract The legislature for
and in consideration of certain labor and
outlay of money confers upon the party of
the second part certain powers and
capacities. The expectation of benefit to the
public is the moving consideration on one
| side, that of expected remuneration for the
outlay on the other. 1t is contract and
therefore cannot be modified, changed or
annulled without the consent of both
parties" The legislature of118S3 directed q
commission to select a site for capital and
| declared that in consideration of large
amount of money to be paid and land to be
given the site should become ''the perma-
nent seat of government" The wisdom of
that law has been of much question, and it is
no part of my duty TO modify, to justify or
defend it. 1t is sufficient to know that Bis
marck was chosen, that it accepts
the proposition made by authority
of the legislature, that it paid the money de-
manded and contributed the land required.
There is no allegation that the city has not
complied with the spirit aud letter Of its
agreement. II the contract were between
| individuals no one would question the bind
| ing force of the obligation. Shall the rule
be changed because one of the parties is a
great territory with honor to defend and dig
nifty to maintain! Such an Interpretation,
in the words Of the judge above quoted,
''woULD SHOCK THE PUBLIC CONSCIENCE"
''There is not one law for the sovereign and
another for the subject" says Judge Allen
III n. Y. $40, ''but when the
| sovereign engages in business enterprises
and contracts with individuals the rights
and obligations Of the parties must be adj
judged upon the same principles as If both
parties were private persons. A state may
repudiate its contracts. It may refuse to
perform them, but its sovereign right to de-
stroy or impair them is limited by the federal
con Institution. 1t may refuse to respond in
damages and leave claimant without any
remedy, as it may refuse to pay its bonds,
but the obligation remains. No legislative
| fla. can destroy that. (See DuDside vs.. the
State, 80 New York, 36.) The court
saws: ''It has been settled so
as to be beyond controversy that
the constitutional provision which denies to
the state the power to pass laws impairing
the obligation OF contracts, applies to all laws
passed within its limits, contracts made by
the state as well as contracts made by indi-
viduals. The sovereign can contract and has
many occasions TO do so. 1t must be gov
erned by the same rules OF common honesty
which bind individuals. 1t is true that as a
rule the legislature is sovereign, and
may modify or abolish Of its pred
ecessors, but the rule has a plain
exception, and this exception seems TO be
itself without an objection "There is no
mode" says the court in a case reported in
| Fifth Mclean 16l "by which legislative act
can be made irrepealable except that it as
sumo the form and substance of contract
/ nd tfre on Ir1v cOia
| Legislative acts are sometimes In the sub
stance Of contracts between the state and the
party who is TO derive some right under
| them. and they are not less under the pro-
| lection of the constitution because having
assumed that FORM (see work on Con-
stitutional limitations, 1860. The books
| seem TO be full Of such cases,
but Judge Cooley has laid down
| a principle in his great work On the coDsti-
| tuition which seems TO cover the measure un-
der consideration entirely and com pletely.
Says the great commentator: "(See section
| 1874, Story on the constitutional 1t has
| been made question whether 1t (the consti-
I tution) applies TO contracts anG grants ere
! sted directly by law or made By some author
! lied agent in pursuance Of law. II has been
| suggested that in such cases it is TO be
! deemed an act of the legislative power, and
that laws are repealable by the same authority
! that enacted them. but it has been de-
4 cided upon solemn agreement that contracts
| or grants made by state are not less within
the reach OF the prohibition than contracts
and grants Of private persons. The leglsla-
/ ture may make contract With individuals
/ by Law, and when It Is accepted # Is equally
under the protection Of the constitution, and
It may be laid down as general principle
that whenever Law IS in IT'S own nature a
contract and absolute rights have been
vested under It, repeal Of that Law cannot
divest those rights or annibilste o. impair
/ The tile 90 acquired No court Of justice in