The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1900-12-04

motion of Lieut. Gov. Clough to succeed
Senator Knute Nelson as governor.
When the next election rolled around
and the contention was raised that Day
had forfeited his seat in the senate by
becoming lieutenant governor. although
only one half of his four years senatorial
term had expired, it was insisted by
many that this was the first step in an
effort to break down the Anderson law by
,contesting the regularity of its passage.
| Day having been one of those who voted
| for it, and without whose vote is would
have been lost on a tie.
Inc legislature unseated Day under the
Whlp hand of the republican state central
| committee, although his ostensibIe sriey-
ance was his leaning toward free silver
rather than his attitude on this bill
Inc courts, however, later declared his
unseating unWarranted and he was re-
imbursed for his expenses in defending
| his right to a seat in the senate during
! the session of 1897 That summer litfga-
ton was begun. Mr.. Bum says:
GREAT NORTHERN NOT IN IT.
Fred Stearns, auditor of Aitl1in county.
left out two pieces of railroad land from
! the tax rolls, and the then attorney gem
| eral, ChlIds, commenced mandarn!1s pro
ceedings to have the land placed back on
| the tax rolls. The matter came befora
Judge Holland at Brainerd, and he grant
ed the write
The case was next taken to the su-
preme court Gf the state, where Judge
Hollands decision was affirmed. Theo
| proceedings in error were Instituted in
the supreme court at Washington. and
to make a long story short, that court
has decided in favor of the railways, and
by virtue of this last decision, the And
eIson law is quashed, as being unoon-
The companies Immediately interest
ed IN this decision, are the Northern Pa
! c1fic and the st. Paul & Duluth. Other
ROADS are also integasted, but they are
| not parties to the present suit
How much would we have had to paw
If the decision had been the other wav?''
The lands formerly owned by the st.
Paul & Duluth have also been sold. but
In the event of an adverse decision the
state would have had probably $500, 900
coming
Il said before that the Great Northern
was not concerned in this decision. This
IS true, but at the same time it has a
better case than had we Most of the
land grant of the Northern Pacific was
obtained under an act of 1865 while that
OF the Great Northern was granted under
previous acts of territorials days, and the
contract held by that company exempting
its lands from special taxa ton is, 1 think,
confessedly a good contract
There are other companies which will
welcome today's decision, for all the
money that has been paid by any of
them is now known to have been paid
under the provisions of a law that is
unconstitutional.
What the Washington court has done
amounts to declaring that the Minnesota
legislature had no power to pass such
q law as the Anderson law Tho oo,,5;
tons under which the grants were made
originally are safeguarded by the con
stitution Of the. United States and cannot
be violated by the legislature
The case has been argued before the
supreme court at Washington twice;
once last spring, when a rehearing of
the case was ordered, and on Oct Is last.
Mr.. Bum and Mr.. Hornblower, of New
York, appeared for the railway com
panies, and Attorney General Douglas
and ex-Attorney General Childs for the
state.