Minnesota weekly times. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1854-1859, 1854-10-24

of discussion, and stoOps to personal illusions,
which were entirely uncalled for. Whether in
tended for or not is of but little consequence.
We repelled his pot-house slang, and:continued
our investigation. Driving him from one corner
to another, in his desperation he turns the second
time from the track, (without provocation) and
charges that the Times is owned by Capt. Wilkin.
To this unblushing effrontry and Justification, we
gave him the lie, and proved him such. He back
ed water and turned his hose-cart to another mud
puddle to draw therefrom filth equally as nause-
Gus as that he had previously used. Disappointed
with the man and vexed beyond endurance, we
permitted ourselves to be drawn into a personal
discussion, which we mutt confess, in view of our
opponent, was anything but agreeable to our
feelings. While this discussion was pending, news
was received, that witnesses had been summoned
from N. York to testify in the alteration of the
Minnesota Land Bill. Here then our fears that
the bill had been fraudulently altered, were fast
being realized. We Immediately published an
article in which we stated that it was our belief
that the bill had beenaltered by the very men in
terested in the scheme, and that we were conf
dent the sequel would so prove. We were relieved
of our fears when the announcement was made
that the Minnesota Land Bill had been repealed
in consequence of the alteration of word not
authorized. by Congress, thus sustaining us in
everything We had uttered up to that moment.-
Further, that one of the men interested was the
very man who made the alteration. We subse-
quently charged H. NJ. Rice, our delegate, with
being implicated or Indifferent to the interests of
our Territory. When the proceedings of the In
vestgating Committee were made known, his own
evidence condemned him. Thus far, what we
had foreseen had proved true.
We now turned our attention to another point,
viz how should the grant of land be reclaimed?
BY condemning those who voted for the repeal?
No. But by justifying the act, on the ground
that those who aided in the repeal of the bill,
a rich, monopolizing Company rith railroad,
much worse than no railroad. We viewed the
matter in the same light and do now, and unless
the interests of our Territory are first properly
secured, we should prefer to have no railroad.-
We want no Camden and Amboy curse. Well,
our position was cOmbatted, the Times claiming
that Congress was perfectly justified in its action,
while the defenders of fraud denounced the men,
bers in no unmeasured terms. The deed having
been donc-the grant of land having been lost
the fraud having been committed, the only course
to pursue, as we conceived, was for the people of
Minnesota to repudiate the fraud and those who
committed it, and by these means we should stand
a chance of getting new grant. Long before
the election thought of, VIC distinctly affirmed
that we should not vote for any man or set of men
for the Legislature rho rere not pledged against
the fraud! and VIC have maintained that position
up to the present hour. Now, then, has there
been anything inconsistent in our course? Have
we done anything more than journalist should
do? Have we not fulfilled our duty, and in full
filling that duty have we not advocated the inter-
csts of the people and the interests of Terri
tory? But our article is getting too long we
shall follow up the subject tomorrow and shall
show that those Wings who stood by the Times
through the campaign, stand to-day on frmcr
ground than they ever stood before. No finger
of scorn points to them and no voice uttcrs,
&c thou art the man who voted to sustain fraud and
the perpetrators of fraud ~ Their skirts are
clear, and rejoice at it, for they represent that
Wing party that was led by the gallant Harry
Clay, who never faltcred in the cause of Right,
though by so doing, he might have been made
President of the United States.