Minnesota weekly times. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1854-1859, 1854-07-18
SATURDAY, JULY Is, 1854.
THAT RAILROAD MATTER.

wisely remarked that it sswould undertake to cor
rect one or two material errors which appeared
in the reply of the Times to its article of Wednes-
day. How far it has succeeded in its efforts, we
will proceed to demonstrate but before doing so,
we wish to call the attention of the community to
the following, as exhibiting determination on
the part of the editor to dodge the issue and d.
vert the attention of the reader to other points of
very little Importance. He says:-
sThere can, with us, be no newspaper contro-
versy on this subject; for il there be any legal
questions arising in regard to the matter, the
courts will settle them, and not newspaper edi-
tors"
Aye, there's the rub After having driven him
to take one position or the other, he ingenously
and enthusiastically skulks behind tho courts,
and like rooster that stands on what he suppo-
ses his own dung-hill, crows Justify over his ap-
parent security. But if possible we shall drive
him still further, so that this community may
know exactly on what ground he stands and why
this eagerness to promote the fruits of hasty
and injudcious legislation. Now We assert, with
out fear of contradiction, that those men in New
York city, who had the lingering of this matter,
knew full we'll that the first Bill for the grant of
land, could never pass Congress as long as the
obnoxious charter enacted by our last Legislature
existed. This, they admitted to several of our
citizens, and were apparently anxious for new
Bill which should contain clause to the effect
ture legislation. They knew beyond the posi-
blity ola doubt that Bill Invested of this clause
could never pass Congress, because it was neces-
sary to gain the good will of those opposed to the
old charter, and consequently the general under
standing was, that by the passage of the Bill for
the ney grant, all previous legislation was annul-
ed. So understood the committee, and if we are
correctly informed, the word future was in the
Bill when it left the hands of the Committee and
So understood the gentleman who framed the bill
so understood our citizens here, Gov. German,
Mr.. Sibley, and others. So understood the gen.
tlemen who voted for the Bill. What now? The
Bill is passed, and 10 the word future is stricken
out! How came it out? Did the Committee do
it? Was it stricken out by an amendment by the
Senate or the House? If SO, where is the evil
dence? And if it was not, who assumed the au-
thority to thus commit gigantic fraud on wor-
thy, intelligent people? From the very moment
that the new Bill for grant of land was intro
duced into the u S. House of Representatives,
our community was led to believe that clause
in that Bill abrogated in toto all past legislation
on the subject, and that before any company could
show the least pretece to the land, they must first
procure charter of our next Legislature, which
would give the people ample time to prepare one
~, G ~
We announced this fact some time since Did
any body deny it? Oh! no, it wouldn't have
done to have agitated the matter then, conse-
quently the people were permitted to believe that
which they were told was correct until the Bill
was passed, and then they are cody Informed by
he hired servants Of the Schuylers and other Wall
street sharpers, that they (the New York schemers)
are an organized company, that the Bill gives the
old charter to then,-that they own the lands
and that no other company, nor the action Of the
Legislature can affect them in any shape or man.
ner! Does the editor of the Minnesotan, who is
undoubtedly cognizant to all this matter, suppose
that the citizens of Minnesota are fools ?-that he
can thus pull wool over their eyes with impunity
while at the same time he shoves golden dollars
at the next fall election he is greatly mistaken.
1t is well known fact that there are now in New
York city four eminent lawyers in the employ of
certain individuals whose whole aim is to so mis-
construe and to so pcrvert the meaning of the Sd
section of the Bill to defraud the people of this
Territory out of their just rights, and to throw
into the hands of a monied company east, po-
Vii oh ho f+ou
to Minnesota. And yet We are impudently re-
quested not to throw obstacles in the way of the
present company-that the press ought not to say
one word on the subject except in praise of the
stupendous wrong, and that there will be s'no oc-
cason for Interference on the part of the people
or the courts, but a general acquiescence must
prevail because the editor of the Minnesotian
thinks it highly necessary for the success of the
splendid scheme, of which he appears to stand
godfather.
Now let us examine the sbad error, !" into which,
the Mnnesotian says the Times has fallen. 1t is
this. That in the third section which we printed
constituted organized, it should be constituted
and organized. All, ha, how comes this How
comes it that in the act printed in the newspapers
of the West certified to by Mr.. Forney, the clerk,
it should read constituted or organized, while in
the Act which the Minnesotian publishes, certified
to by Gen. Jones, of Iowa, it is printed consttu-
ted and organized. There is something strange
about this matter. But let US inquire how came
that "and'' inserted in the Bill? The printed
copy of the Bill as first introduced into the Ma
tiona Councils contained the clause ssconstituted
OR organized. Was there an amendment offered
to strike out the word ''or'' and insert "and ?,'
and if there was, where is the evidence? And if
there was not, how came the word ssand' in there?
There is a mystery about this matter. and as the
Minnesotian pretends to know all about it, we
wish it would clear it up. 1t is a duty it owes to
the community, and it should be done. But,
granting that the clause is constituted and orga-
nized, what thcn2 Does not the whole tenor of
the section 60 to show that the object of the
grant was to prevent the present company from
receiving the lands under the old charter? And
was not this the understanding of those gentlemen
who voted for the Bill? And was it not the un-
derstanding of our citizens, and is it ret now p
This ''pettifoging" and quibbling on the part of
the Minnesotian, is ridiculous, and it can only be
accounted for on the ground that self-interest
sometimes blinds mans better judgment.
We were in error in stating that the Company
was organized on the 29th of June. We we'll
knew that it was on the lst of July, and had not
the composition left out line in the article. the