St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1895-03-07

mum, and he showed, considerable
petulance when he arose and stated
that the record was correct. Senator
Wyman said that as a member of
the finance committee he remem-
bered that the bill had been reported
for postponement indefinitely.
Ozmun questioned the accuracy of
this statement in language that in
Dictated that he was nettled, and
claimed that Senator Morgan, as
chairman Of the finance committee,
| had told him otherwise.
Senator Wyman asked the matter
! to be allowed to rest until Senator
| Morgan should be present, and sent
a page to bring that gentleman from
| the cloak room. Senator Morgan be-
! ing asked as to the fact stated that
the committee had recommended in
| definite postponement.
| Senator OZmun, still nettled, tried
| to carry his point and proceeded to
| say: LAS the gentleman has inter
| ested himself so much in this bill, l
will explain that when the bill was
reported 1 moved that the report of
| Tic CO1IlIllllSt pC S1iclSOo ciiN
asked permission of the chairman
| of the finance committee to make
! the motion
Senator Morgan, as chirman OF the
| finance committee, said he had con-
scented to the motion to allow the
! bill to go upon general orders, but
the committee had not reversed its
| 10 fnr, in1nfinitn- rngt-
! ponement.
Senator Wyman, without seeming
to observe the petulant manner and
| air of mock severity of Mr.. OZmun,
| proceeded to explain that the recon-
mendation of a committee could not
| be changed except by the committee
| itself, and at his suggestion the rec
| ord was corrected so as to show
that the committee had recommend
ed indefinite postponement, and the
bill had been placed upon general
| orders upon motion of Senator o.
mum.
1T CUTS DEEP.
A communication from Attorney
General Childs was received which
embraced a lengthy opinion in re-
Spouse to the resolution of Senator
Durham, who wanted the senate in
| formed as to the right to appropriate
money for drainage and upon what
| different principle it would be con-
sidered as compared with appro-
| priations for roads and bridges. The
! opinion comes as a thunderbolt to a
| large number Of patrons of bills, as
| it will have the effect of killing off
hundred or possibly two hundred
bills carrying various appropria-
lions. 1t is just such an opinion as
Senator Durham and a number of
| others in both houses wanted, and
will give courage to a number of
citizens to enjoin the appropriations
in many cases should they pass. 1t
will not only defeat the Red river
drainage appropriation, but cuts off
road and bridge appropria tons. The
chief points in the opinion are as fol-
lows:
GEN. CHILDS' OPINION.
The question presented involves an
inquiry into the purport of the follow
ing provision contained in article 9, of
section 5, of the State Constitution:
1.-The state shall never contract any
debts for works of internal improve
ment, or be party in carrying on such
works, except in case where grants of
| land or other property shall have been
| made to the state, especially dedicated
by the grant to specific purposes; and
! in such cases the state shall devote
| thereto the avails of such grants and
| may pledge or appropriate the revenues
| derived from such works in aid or their
| completion
AT the outset, 1T may be said as an
incontrovertible proposition that roads
| and bridges and a system of drainage
are internal improvements within the
| contemplation of the above provision
of the constitution; and it therefore
follows that the state cannot, in the alb
| sence of Appropriate donation to it for
| such purposes, either contract debts
| therefor, or be a party in carrying
| them on. Grippe VS.. Becker, 81 N. w.
! Rep, 331.)
What is plainly prohibited cannot be
! overcome by indirection. In whatever
guise the legislature seeks to commit
the state to the support of such enter
~ 1853 Wy uSNOliIlo Vi plGuS1llR TO
| them, whether legally or morally, di-
rectly or indirectly, the public reve-
nues, it is equally offensive to the con-
stitution.
The legislature is prohibited from ex-
tending the aid of the state to any OBJ
Jects, unless it has been the recipient
of grants of lands or property there
for. When the legislature devotes the
revenues of the state to the construc-
ton of a public elevator, public bridge
or public ditch without a previous
grant, the constitution is therey vio-
lated, nor do 1 perceive how this prohi-
bition can be overcome by donations
from the public treasury to a munich
pality for such an object If any
other doctrine is to obtain, an avenue
is at once afforded for the certain de-
feat of the purposes sought to be eff
| fected by the trainers of the consti-
tuition.
But while conceding the force OF
these views it may be urged that an ap-
preparation for a system of drainage
can be justified upon one or the other
of the following grounds:
FirSt-That the lands acquired by the
state pursuant to the act of congress OF
Mafch IL, 1S6O, is impressed with G
trust that the state should employ
them OF the proceeds derived from
their sale, as far as necessary, il
constructing levees and retaining then
to useful purposes.
Second-That the state may improve
its own lands.
Third-That system of public drain
age may be undertaken as police reg
ulation for sanitary purposes
I am unable to subscribe to the frs
contention. Can the state improve ii
own lands? Undoubtedly it may do s,
as to lands requisite for the purpose
of government, as the sites of publi
buildings, and perhaps it would h
likewise true even as to the wild land
of the state in those cases where pub
lie policy requires their improvement
by suitable drainage. But if this wer
conceded, 1 am yet clearly of the opin