The weekly Minnesotian. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1852-1858, 1854-10-07
Wing Testimony.

We had concluded not to publish any more
testimony showing the utter fallacy of the
charges made against the integrity of our Dele
gate and the practical Railroad men of Mime
sofa. who have laborcd with him to give our
people railroad in the shortest possible time.
But the following letter, from distinguished
Wing Member of Congress, is so candid and di-
rectly to the point that we feel called upon to
place it before the readers of the Minnesotian
We presume none Of the anti-Railroad organs
will have the boldncss to attempt to prove that
Mr.. Pennington is an interested witness:
NEWARK, NEW JEEsEY,l
Sept. I'd, 1854.
GENTLEMEN Your letter of 2lst of August.
was received this moment. and hasten to com
ply with your request. Although my relations
with Mr.. Rice have not been intimate, and nv
political sentiments do not accord with his,
cannot hesitate to do him the justice to say, as
do most decidedly. that, in my opinion. the
imputatiOns against him. to which your letter
refers. are altogether unfouuded. l had the
pleasure to make his acquaintance early in the
last session of Congress. and found him high
ly intelligent, and. as l believe. ever faithful
and vigilant representatives of the interests of
Minnesota. Indeed, was strongly impressed
by his assiduity. suavity, and peculiar fitness
for his trust and | am confident that no one
could have filled his place with more accept
ance among those with whom he was called to
act and associate. l think | may safely say.
that he commanded universal respect, and was
always listened to with entire confidence in the
House.
In regard to the particular subject to which
the inlpntatiOns relate, | have some personal
knowledge. which it is proper under the cir
cumstances, asyOu request it, to communicate.
My attention was called to the subject of grants
of lands to Minnesota Territory. and the State
of Wisconsin. and other States, for railroad pur-
poses. in the early part of the session. by the
proceedings of the House. / had formed an I'M
favorable opinion OF the projects generally, al
though favorable to the principle. With no
other Information than such as | would have
been likely to fall in with in the usual course
of business, would, doubtless. have opposed
the grant to Minnesota. was, however, ulti.
mately persuaded to vote for il, through the
active instrumcntaity of Mr.. Rice who ex-
planned to me carefully the nature ofthe grant
and the extent of the benefits which would re.
suit from it.
Your Delegate was. as know, actively and
efficiently engaged in advocating the passage
of the bill up to the last moment. and think |
am not mistaken in saying that, but for his
That he did not alter the bill after it passed the
House abundantly appears from the proceed
ings of that body, and certainly nothing in
these proceedings, or elsewhere. justilies the
suspicion even, that he either procured or an.
proved the alteration. Nor should he be blam-
ed for not having been the first to discover the
fact of the alteration. He could not have sun.
posed that such an offence would have been
perpetrated under the sanction o. sworn off.
GERS of the House. The repeal could not have
been prevented by Mr.. Rice's or any other in
huence that Minnesota might have brought to
bear upon the question.
A sort of furOr or stampede had seized upon
the body which de6ed any thing like calm. de-
liberation of action. voted against the re.
repeal at the instance of Mr.. Rice who was ey-
identity anxious to preserve the bill. and was
informed by him that the repeal would greatly
disappont his people. l relied upon him as
the proper representative the Territorial in |
terests connected with the subject, and would |
have voted for the repeal but for hi. interposi-
ton.
wish to be understood as not desiring. in
any degree. to interfere in your local concerns.
but l would feel that had failed in my duty !