Minnesota weekly times. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1854-1859, 1854-08-22
/" NO FRAUD

Whle the editor OF the MinnoS0tlan and his CO.
adjutors are crying out 'sno fraud" the press
throughout the country are laying bare the ras-
cally transactions of Col. Forney and his associ-
ates in altering the Minnesota Land Bill. The
following from the N. Y. Evening Post, Demo-
cratic paper, expresses very nearly the views
we have advanced on this subject. We publish
them as an expression from entirely disinterested
parties and ask for the article careful perusal
We begin to have some hopes of the House of
Representatives at Washington. The fraud COM
mitted, in altering the Minnesota Land Act after
its passage, in such manner as to give the sole
use Of the lands to a certain chartered company,
has been dealt with, so far as the House has pro-
ceeded, in proper manner; a bill to repeal the
act was Immediately passed by large majority.
With regard to the conclusion at which the inves-
tigating committee arrived. namely, that the al
teratOn was not made with a fraudulent design,
we attach little value to it. There was no fraud
proved beyond the mere fact of the alteration ;
nobody confessed before the committee, that the
object Of the alteration was to give the lands to
the company in question; and nobody testified
that any of the parties engaged in the affair had
avowed fraudulent intention. But the alteration
was fraud in itself, and no evidence of dis
honest intention is needed. The alteration has the
effect of giving the lands to company from
which those who supported the bill had intended
to withhold it, and who were therefore careful to
see, before voting for the hill that its phraseoo
~ was such as to exclude the company from the
benefit of its provisions.
Suppose two men should be standing near each
other in crowded public meeting. The hand of
one of them steals gently into the others pocket,
withdraws his purse, and delivers it to thirdper-
son who is conveniently posted to receive it. The
fore a magistrate. He sends for counsel, who
comes to see what can be done for him.
Suppose the lawyer should say to the court,
ssThere is no evidence Of criminal intention in
this case, and until it can be proved that my eli
ent took the purse with design to steal, he must
hand slid into his neighbours pocket instead of his
own, by mistake that when he took out the purse,
he thought it was his own pocket handkerchief,
and that in giving it to third person, he thought
he was sending the handkerchief to his laundress
to be washed. My client must therefore be dis
charged"
Such line of defence would not answer with the
court neither will it answer with the people of
the United States in the case of Mr.. Stevens, of
Michigan, and MIR. Forney, Clerk of the House of
Representatives. The taking of the purse in the
| case we have supposed is crime and common
sense as well as the law nfers the intent from the
act. The making of an essential alteration in an
| act of Congress, so as to change its object and
put money into the pockets Of a class of specula-
| tors, from whom the act was expressly so framed
as to withhold it, is another crime and the same
rule of common sense is to be applied the de-
sign of those who made the alteration is to be in
ferred from what they have done. We cannot. in
fact, well have any other testimony. A man who
| is about to commit Il fraud of the kind does not
go into a crowd and say, &C Now you shall see how
handsomely will cheat those members Of Con-
gress by altering their bill - nor does he 60 out
after he has done it, and proclaim on the house
tops that he has amended the law in manner
which will be greatly to the advantage of some
worthy friends Of his This sort Of fraud is close.
mouthed; it says as little as may be of its OWL
transactions, Or if it is obliged to talk, it talks OF
Sc clerical errors" of 'unimrortant alterations, "
&c.
1t appears from the report Of the investigating
committee that Mr.. Forney thought the alteration
not important. If not important, why il
madc? If not important, there was no call fol-
the correction Of the pretended error. The act
was good English as it stood, and if it did not
fully express what its trainers intended, Congress
was still in session and competent to amend it.
If the present clerk of the House of Represen.
tatiyes does not know what alterations are impor-
tant and what not he is clearly unfit for his place
| If he knows what alterations are important and
makes them himself, the case is still worse. In
either alternative he ought to resign his post, Or
if he does not resign, he ought to be deprived OF
it. The House should not be satisfied with repeal
ing the spurious bill placed on it's archives by
one of its recording officers. Having got rid OF
the bill, it should send the delinquent officer af-
| ter it.