Chamberlain for himself and others submitted an offer to cut their claims in two and accept new six per cent. bonds in payment. To this the legislature promptly agreed, but the electors in the following November put their veto on the bill. They did the same thing to an act of 1878 providing for an exchange of internal improvement lands for the bonds, differing in particulars from a previous act of the same general tenor. In his messages of 1879 and 1881 Governor Pillsbury, under the heading of “Dishonored Bonds,” entreated and implored the legislatures to pay the honest debt of the state and clear her tarnished honor. His earnest and impressive appeals had no effect on the former of the two, but the legislature of 1881 was moved to provide for a special tribunal, to be composed of judges of the supreme and district courts, to consider and decide whether the repudiating amendment of 1860 was binding on the legislature. If the tribunal should hold in the negative, then the old bonds were to be redeemed by new ones at fifty per cent. of the amount nominally due. Not one of the judges of the Supreme Court was willing to serve, and the tribunal was tardily made up of five district judges designated by the governor. The tribunal met and organized, and nothing more. An order from the Supreme Court required it to show cause why a writ of prohibition should not issue, on the ground that the legislature had not the right to establish such a tribunal. The attorney-general at the same time protested against its competency, and had leave to protest further that the act was repugnant to the constitutional amendment of 1860, which forbade payment of the bonds unless after an affirmative vote of the electors. This pleading brought forward as the principal issue the validity of that amendment. The contentions were exhaustively argued in the Supreme Court by able counsel. The decision of the court was that the repudiating amendment of 1860 was obnoxious to that provision of the constitution of the United States forbidding states from passing any law impairing the obligations of contracts. The writ of prohibition issued and the tribunal dissolved. There was no appeal, and the Minnesota legislature was free to dispose of the bond matter without a referendum. Governor Pillsbury called that body to meet on October 11. The bondholders were ready and anxious to accept fifty cents on the dollar. A bill to issue new 10-30 four and one half per cent. “Minnesota state railroad adjustment bonds,” to a sufficient amount, was passed after some contention as to details. A companion bill devoting the proceeds of the 500,000 acres of internal improvement land was passed, and under constitutional requirement submitted to the electors in November, 1884. The vote stood: Yes, 31,011; no, 13,589. The presidential vote of the state in 1880 was 150,484. This vote, therefore, did not indicate so much a change of sentiment among the people as a willingness to have