The miners' express. (Dubuque, Iowa) 1849-1854, 1854-09-06

was not made for the purpose OF fraud, nor, /
my opinion, contains fraud in it, J here is u
man, | suppose, in the House, who would no
/ have given his consent to the alteration, if hi
atentinn had been called to it.
t Mr. CAMPBELL lfthe gentleman from
! Georgia will permit me, ] will expain that tn
alteration could no, have been made in a parlia
men'ary way, for This reason: 1t was then abou
the 2Sth of June; this charter wonId have be.
come void on the first OF July If the wore
sand" had been substituted in a parliamentary
wav in the Senate, the bill would have come
back to this House with an amendment II
would have gone to The Speaker 8 table, and the
first of July would have elapsed before il become
law
Mr. STEPHENS. Again the gentleman is
assuming all his facts, lfthe sand had been
substituted for the ''or" in the Senate, ques
ton il there is a man in this House who would
have failed to have given assent Immediately 10
the correction. Because defy any gentleman
to look into it, and say whether there Is any
difference between the two words, in the con-
nection in which they are used | make these
remarks to show that--as think-there has
been s'great cry and no WOOL in this matter
So far as | am concerned, have no doubt in
the world that the bill would have been passed
as readily with one word in it as with the other.
Mr.. STANTON, of Tennessee. am very
much inclined TO believe, with the gentleman
from Gorgia, that the substitution OF the word
sand' for the word .or' is quite as immaterial as
he supposed it to be. But whether it be mater.
ial or mmatesial, it seems to me that it is I'm
possible for TO act on this subject any further
than to order the reports of facts made both by
the majority and minority of the committee to
be printed Now, that is the very thing that
think the House ought to do 1t is We un.
certain to hat the effect of the alteration is.
1t seems, from the opinians of the majority and
minority Of the committee, that the gentleman
who originally reported the bill, intended to
have reported il with the word "and" in the
connection in question. He supposed-or some
of those having interest in it supposed-that it
would be material alteration. The gentleman
who had the bill charge believed the word
sand" to have heen in the Lill And suppose
there are not three members on the floor of the
House who knew, at the time The bill was pas.
sed, whether it contained the word and, or the
word 'or' in this connection. Nor do | suppose
that there are three gentlemen on the floor who
cared whether it was one or the other word, or
to what company the benefits or advantages OF
the grant should inure.
But if there is material differance in The bill
by the substitution of the word sand for the
word "or," beg the House to remember that
by the passage of this act, and by the subsequent
or prior action of the Legislature of the Terri.
tory of Minnesota, rights may have been deriv-
eo under that grant. Obligations may have
been assumed, money may have been paid, in
nocent parties may have come in and been de-
ceived by the passage of this law. If so, |
hope it would not be right, and il would not be
in the power of the House, to withdraw that
grant | do not know how these things are,
but it has been said here upon the floor Of this
House, by the gentleman from Mississippi, Mr..
Barry,] and by others, that the original corpor.
ators in that act are not the parties now inter
es,ed in the grant which has been made by Con.
gress. DO you know, does this House know,
has the committee examined the fact, whether
this grant has passed into the hands Of innocent
purchasers, or whether its benefits inure to the
original coporators, or to the parties " ho have
been Implicated in procuring this fraud
Sir, it is doubtful whether fraud could be i'm
piled against any persons in reference TO this
matter, when it is shown, upon the floor Of this
House that member of this House, acting upon
his own belief as In the immateriallty of the al
eraiion, and designing to carry out the object
IF the committee, made this alteration innocent
ly, and when the reports of both committees
axonerate all parties Of any intention of fraud
1t seems 10 me that if any correction is to be
made in this bill, it ought to be made accord.
os W me ihieHtfoh Oh TIE coii'hittee Wnlcn re-
ported the bill, when the intention of the House
lid not appear to be one way or the other, ex-
,spt that the bill passed the House in a
condition not intended by those who reported
t to the House. | think, sir, in order to perfect
he examination of this question, the passage OF
hose bills-it they are to be passed at all
'ught to be postponed until they are deliberately
xamined; aud therefore, shall move, at the
proper tune, to refer this matter to the Comm-
ee Of the whole on the state of the Union.