The Redwood gazette., 1919-12-03
SOLDIERS BONUS LAW.

= ION. THEODORE CHRISTIANSON, repre-
sentative from Lac Qui Parle County took
= an animated and important part in the pass
ing of the Minnesota Soldiers Bonus Law passed
at the special session of the state legislature.
Mr. Christianson, as an attorney Of worth, un-
doubtedly has fundamen ally greater knowledge
of the legal aspects of the law than can possible
be possessed by the 'state capitol correspondent
he mentions in the article below. We quote Mr..
Christanson's opinion in its entirety
Al state capitol correspondent WHO has made a
business Of purveying misinformation to the conn-
try press is out with an opinion that the soldiers
bonus law is unconstitutional in that it authorizes
the issuance of what are in effect bonds, in ex-
cess Of the constitutional limit; and further that
the law is faulty in that the certificates, for the
issuance Of which it provides, do not pledge the
credit of the state.
sThe legal opinion of the man who spreads this
stuff is Of course, not to be considered seriously
The bonus law was submitted to the attorney gen
eral for his opinion before it was introduced and
passed the gauntlet of the states legal depart
ment If it were not for the fact that service
who have earned the bonus and are expecting to
get it. are led to believe that there is some doubt
that they will get their money, it would be unnec-
essary to tempt discussion of the legal aspects
of the soldiers bonus law.
In order to find the soldiers bonus law uncon
stitutional, the Supreme Court must reverse, the
position that it has taken in at least two leading
cases. One of these, the case of Brown vs. Ring
dahl, clearly established the principle that the
Legislature may provide for the issuance of GER
tificates of Indebtedness in anticipation of tax
levies authorized and directed by law, that such
issuance in excess Of the sum of $250OOO is not in
contravention of any constitutional inhibition.
This case arose when tax payers sought to re-
strain the state Board of Control from issuing GER
tificates to raise money wherewith to build the
new state prison.
The objection that the certificates provided-for
don't pledge the credit of the state discloses the
ignorance of this critic Of the soldiers bonus law
If the legislature had attempted to. pledge the
credit of the state, it would have done the very
thing that would render an issue in excess of the
constitutional limitation void. It is because the
credit of the state is not pledged that he certifi
Gates do not represent public obligation and do
not come within the constitutional provision. The
certificates merely represent claim against the
proceeds of a tax levy already authorized BY
law The Supreme Court has clearly stated that
Jnefe IS nOlnlng III the GOnsLiLuLlon nmlIlng the
right Of the Legislature, in the making Of appro-
prations and levies to the specific term for which
members were elected That being true. there
can be no limit the right Of the Legislature to
determine how the money so appropriated and le-
We'd shall be disbursed. Issuing and retiring
tificates merely constitute only manner Of dis
bursting money. The certificates are merely evi-
dence Of the right f the holder to receive the
proceeds Of certain levies made to meet certain
appropriations; they do not pledge the faith and
credit Of the state.
The Supreme Court will have to reverse itself
If it shall find the soldiers bonus law unconsti-
tutional. This, it is safe to say, the Supreme
Court VIII not do.