St. Paul daily globe., 1896-02-09
WAS FULL Of WORDS
HARRIS RICHARDSON'S LONG AR
GUMENT FOR ANOKA BOREs THE
DISTRICT BENCH.
JUDGES ORDERED A RECESS,
AND WHEN COURT CONVENED
AGAIN CALLED HASTINGS, MAN
TO BAT.
CASE IS UNDER AMUSEMENT.

CASE IS UNDER AMUSEMENT.
Submitted to the Court-Anokn's
Brief to Come.
The fight over the location of the
fourth state hospital for the insane
was finally submitted to Judges Brill,
Kelly and Otis last evening, after
the entire day had been consumed in
listening to arguments on the case.
The bulk Of the time was taken UP by
Attorney Harris Richardson in an argu-
ment a striking feature Of which
was its verbosity.
The arguments were on motion of
Mr. Richardson to dismiss the injunc-
ton. He argued that if the commits
sion, as the agent of the state, had
done anything wrong, It's action was
void, and on the allegations of the
complaint there was no warrant for the
interference of a court Of equity. The
action had already been taken by the
commission. 1t had consummated a
contract for the purchase of the Anoka
site, and an injunction would not lie
to restrain from an action that had
already been taken. The commission
had completed its work, as far as the
securing Of a site was concerned, and
it was for the legislature to accept or
reject it.
The law under which the commission
was appointed provided specifically
for two things: First, the location Of a
site, and, second, it's purchase. When
the vote was taken with reference to
the Hastings site, it was simply on the
question of locating, but in no way
entering into contract for the pur-
chase of site. The motion had been
| made by Commissioner Smith to locate
the hospital at Hastings" and this
was the question on which the vote
was taken. The question of contract
ing for the purchase of a site had not
been reached yet.
There were two sites at Hastings, and
the board reserved the right to reject
either or both Of them. 1t bound itself
to nothing. The vote could be recon-
sidered by majority, as it was after
wards. 1t was not the people of
Hastings who were complainants in
the action, but the state, alleging that
Its agents had done wrong If a con-
tract had been entered into with the
people OF Hastings, why had they not
come in to seek to have 1t enforced?
AT this point the court took a recess.
and on resu1ning the bench, called on
the other side to present it's arguments.
H. M China n off ,.,Itb
statement of the case. He maintained
that the commission purchased a site
from the city of Hastings, entered into
a contract and the majority were now
Ignoring this and entering into another
contract with the city Of Anoka. In
reply to the contention Of Mr.. Rich
ardson' that the commission had com
pleted it's work and an Injunction
would not lie, he said the commission
had not yet drawn voucher on the
state auditor for the purchase price
OF the Anoka site when this action was
begun and the summons served. But
the Anoka faction then rushed ahead
ana mad the voucher presented at once.
commissioners Smith, Bondy. Carl
/ son and Hopper had repeatedly express
ed the conviction that the site offered
| py Hastings was the best but this fact
was being disregarded to the detriment
VI the state 1t was not true that Hast
1ngS had offered two sites. What was
known as the Quail offer was made by
an Individual, and the city had nothing
to do with it. The city offered but
one site, and that was the one ac-
cepted. According to all the rules laid
down regarding real estate contracts.
an tnat was necessary was that the con-
tract contain description of the prop
erty the price to be paid and he srb-
scribed to by the seller All that was
necessary on the part Of the buyer to
make a contract binding on both was
MS acceptance. He did not have to sub
scribe to it. Hastings made such a con
tract, and subscribed to it, and when
the commission voted to accept it, 1t be-
came binding on both.
The commission had gone further and
reported to the city council Of Hastings
that it's offer had been accepted. Like
an electoral commission, this commits
| sion could not reconsider it's action or
canvass the vote. The meeting at Fer
! gus Falls was an adjourned meeting
from that called at Rochester for the
consideration Of plans, therefore the
only thing in order was the business
Tor Which the meeting had originally
| been called. The anxiety on the part of
the commission to have the Injunction
| dissolved showed that there was a con-
| spiracy between them and the people of
| Ancka.
| Attorney Seymour then made quite a
| strong point on the effect Of the state
| ment alleged to have been made by
Hopper at the Fergus Falls meeting.
| The substance Of this statement Is that
! he (Hoper) voted for Hastings, believ-
ing the site offered by it to be the best.
He believed so still but now favored
the Anoka site because the people Of
his district desired him to do So Mr..
Seymour contended that Mr.. Hopper and
the other commissioners were appoint
ed to select the most desirable site. and
when Mr.. Hopper stated that he still be-
lieved the site at Hastings was the best.
that was his vote, and his contrary re-
sponse on the call of the roll could not
| change 1T. Mr.. Seymour cited two or
three authorities to sustain this point.
The attorneys on both sides then sub
mitted their briefs, and City Attorney
Wyman, Of Anoka, was allowed five
| days in which to file a brief also. The
three judges will give the case due con-
sideration before deciding it.
Before beginning his argument Mr.
| Richardson submitted affidavits by
Secretary Eastman and Commissioners.
Hopper as offsets to those filed a week
ago by the attorneys on the other side
Of the case Mr.. Eastman alleged in
his affidavit that the commission had
never notified Hastings that the tract
Of land offered in that city had been
selected, as q site, and no one repre-
senting the city Of Hastings had ever