New Ulm review. (New Ulm, Brown County, Minn.) 1892-1961, 1892-10-26
TILE STATE ] JUDICIAL ICKET

TILE STATE ] JUDICIAL TICKET
SOME REASONS FOR THE ELEc-
| TON OF REPUBLICAN, CAN
DiDATES.
Their Services to the State IN the
/ Past-Gentlenen of the High
| est Character and
Ability.
It is serious misfortune to the
! interests OF the commonwealth, that
/ the practice of taking out of politics
the highest judicial positions known
to the law should not be universally
/ followed. So much depends upon the
character and legal knowledge of the
man chosen to interpret the laws Of the
state, that they should not be sub
| anitted to the necessity Of seeking
! their own election, or of taking any
| part int the turmoil of political warfare.
1t is'particularly discredi to our
system of government that mean
| fellows Of the haser sort" should find
audiences in the intelligent state of
Minnesota who should so far forget
their self respect as to sit for hours
and listen to ian arrangement Of the
members of our State Supreme Court.
just at this time a small coterie of
disgruntled lawyers more proper
ly, pettifoggers- taking it upon
| themselves to call in question the
common honesty of the, highest ju-
dicial tribunal OF Minnesota Their
ostensible reason is that the court in
it's official character has dared to
render decisions in certain cases
wherein their clients have been. defeat
ed. It therefore follows that the
court is corrupt, :and these so-calIed
lawyers are shouting from the stump
at the top of their lungs that the
court is organized in the interest Of
corporations and Interpreting the
laws against the common good and i'll
favor OF combined capital.
It would probably not be, worth
while to make any reply to these men, If
| their characters were we'll known
to the people Of the state at large.
| But while those most intimately ac-
| quainted with them know that as
attorneys they are destitute ofcharac-
ter and have no recognized standing
among their more reputable fellows
at, the bar, the people do not know
| them, and thus are liable to be led
astray by their plausible statements
| OF hall Htruths, and insinuating argu-
nlents drawn therefrom.
1t is a little remarkable that ten
years ago when two members Of the
Supreme Court were candidates for
reelection the leaders of the railway
employers association made the
! charge that the decision of this court
were so hostile to railway companies
as to reduce their earnings SO much
that the companies were compelled to
reduce the wages Of their employees.
But while the Supreme Court has
always endeavored to be wholly inn
partial and to administer the law
without fear or favor, the general
trend Of it's decisions has always been
in the line fof keeping corporators
strictly within the limits OF their char
tered rights.
Let us give a few illustrations OF
this: In territorial days the legislature
unfortunately exempted the railroad
land grants from taxation without
limitation as to time until the lands
were sold and conveyed.
It is a notorious fact I'm many
instances various DEVICES were resorted
to to shield these lands from tax
alton after their ownership had been
actually severed from the railroads.
| The state in it's leniency was slow to
discover their devices, but
whenever such a state of facts
| rl,t Il no
! ly stripped off the sham covering in
which these transactions had been
| clothed and held the lands subject to
| taxation. Three notable instances Of
this were the cases OF the so-called
Barney lands" OF the Winona and
St. Peter company, the swamp land
grant to the "River road" or main
line OF the Chicago Milwaukee and St.
Paul and the lands OF the Sioux City
| road (See State VS.. w. & St. p. R. r.
FL MINI. 472. St. Paul & Chicago R.
r. VS.. Mcdonald 81 id. 1875.
| 1t will also be remembered that the
! legislature provided that in consider
| alton OF the payment of q certain per-
| centage OF theirgross earnings the prop
| erty of railroad companies should be
! exempt from taxation. Under this
provision many companies claimed
as exempt from taxation numerous
valuable tracts Of land not used for
| railroad purposes. The court how
| ever. gave the exemption a strict
construction and held that it ap-
| piled only to property held and used for
railway purposes. Under this ruling
much valuable railroad property in
St. Paul, Duluth, Ottertail County,
and elsewhere, were held liable to TAXA
! ton. (See Ramsey County VS.. en-. & ST.
Paul R. r. Co., 33 MINI 537 County
! Of Todd VS.. Mandota R. r.. 38 id 1853.
/ City of St. Paul VS.. Same 80 id 1l2
County of st. Louis vs. Duluth R. r.
| 45id $40 State VS.. N. r. r. Co. Mimi
! 25.) In the early days of the rail
road companies they were given right
to build their loads ACROSS streets and
other highways on condition of their
restoring such highways in condi-
ton fit for public travel. This duty
was generally performed at first by
making surface crossings. But in time,