Minnesota weekly times. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1854-1859, 1854-11-28
TUESDAY, NOV. %, 1854.
From the Dubuque Herald.
Minnesota Railroad.

cts
coed no had before Judge Welch in Territorial
Court of Minnesota, will show. 1t will be seen
from this report of case between the United
States and the Minnesota and North Western X.
X. Company, that the act of Congress repeating
the law by which donation OF land was made to
Minnesota, for Railroad construct on. has been
declared, us it probably is, unconstitutional and
void.
This abstract of the is the most intelligi-
BILE form in which can present the information
1t CONVEYS to our readers:
The District Court, LIST. Judicial District.
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
against
The MINNESOTA AND NORTH WESTERN
RAILROAD COMPANY.
Action of trespass for cutting and carrying
away trees, &c.
The complaint alleges that on the 18th of Oct.
1854, the defendants cut and carried away 500
trees, from the close of the pf, being Sec. 3, of
Town ll2 in Goodhue County.
The answer admits the cutting and carrying
away, &C., but juStlies under the Act of the Ter
ritorial Legislature of the 4th of March, 1904,
whereby the defts., were Incorporated and any
lands that might be granted bv Congress to aid
in the construction of the II. Road in question
'.are hereby conveyed to said Company, in simple
fee,' absolute, without any further Sc act or
deed - also AYERS that the Company have in all
things complied with the requirements of the
charter also sets up the Act OF Congress of the
Doth of June, 1854, and then AYERS that the sup
posed trespasses were committed by defts., in the
necessary construction of their road which they
had located upon and across said Section ), and
within and upon track of said road, they had a
lawful right to do.
The plifs., reply that the Act of Congress Of
Oath of June, was repealed by the Act of the
4th of August, 1854.
Section of the last named Act, repeating the for
mer one. is void.
The ease was argued on the 2nd inst, before
Chief Justice WEIGH, bv Mr.. Rice and Mr.. Viii
kinson of counsel for the defendants in support Of
the demurrer. and Mr.. Brisbin Asst Atty for the
L. S. IN opposition thereto.
On the 18th inst. the Chief Justice allowed the
demurrer and gave judgment for the defendant,
and d cded the following points:
lst. by an Act of Congress approved June 29th,
1854. granting certain lands 10 the Territory Of
Minnesota, to aid sa d Territory i'll constructing
Railroad, the Territory co Instant upon the pas
sage of the Act acquired an interest and property
in the lands granted, which the Territory could
grant and convey.
2nd. BY the Act of the Legislature of NJ nneso-
Ia and North Western Railroad Co., the said COM
panv acquired an interest and property on all the
llnds subsequently granted 10y Congress to the
Territory. for the purposes of the road which in
tercst became vested in said COMPANY Immediate
IL upon the passage of the act of Congress and
the organization Of the Company.
Sd. The 'cond section oi the act OF Congress
passed Aug. 4th. 1854, repeating the first mention
cd act of Congress is repugnan. not only to the
constitution OF the United States, but also to
great and fun lament / principles which hav: been
rccagn zcd rs banding from tine imin mortal,
wherever the common law eyai.s.
We nave only to ad that the goes to he
Supreme Court Of tha Territory which viii IN: ct
on the 9th. of next month. Thee is c,erv cason
founded on Jaw to believe thai til" decision of The
court below viii .e sustained By, not on the SUI
. enc Court of Minnesota. hut also bv the SUI
preme Court of the United States.
CJ- We hive not fou ii; this rayo I'd swindlc
merely for tn, pl asGrc off ,htn- it bat because we
81 ed to see u >ticc triumph-to Il prime pie
lrclomnate-a we sh,l not relax our efforts
at this late day in order to allow Il erta:n mum
b of men 10 ride rough >hoi oyer Congress, the
peopLe and the c-slaturc of MINI >ota, and even
the supreme Court, in order to get possession of
large tract of best lands to which the have
no ri.ht We are perfectly willing that the ques
ton should he tested farly-put the matter on
the record fa;rly-trcat the people Of this Terri
tory as thou-h they were intelligent beings, and
they will 90 with the Railroad Company and
abide the decision of the Supreme Court, but until
this is done, they will fight the matter 70 the Bit
ter end. Let us examine some of the points.
lSt. The complaint, (that is the United States)
(. alleges that on the 18th of Cc.. 1854, the de-
defendants cut and carried away 500 trees" &c.
Does any one suppose that 300 or even 100 trees
have been cut upon lands claimed to belong to the
Railroad Company, for which this action was
brought? Not by any means. Why then wa, the
issue made! Simply to accommodate the Rail
md nd IN prt tl,n ttpr,, of Tho
hands Of The people into the Supreme Court, an
extra session for which, we understand, has been
called. Has there been any collision in the prem
ises We do not say there has been, but it GER
tainly looks to
I'd. ''Thc answer admits the cutting, and car
ryng away, &C.. but justiiies under the act Of the
Territorial legislature" giving the Company
such lands might be granted by Congress to
the Territory for railroad purposes.
1t is query in our mind how the Legislature Of
orr Territory could give away that winch the Ter
ritory did not possess. On the same principle,
any thing granted to the Territory by Congress,
can be given away by our Legislature 600 years
before Congress makes the donation. The prin-
ciple is the same; and let the precedent once be
set, and where will it end But again. The
answer savers that the supposed trespass"s were
committed by delts. in the necessary construction
of their road which they had located upon and
across said section 3, and within and upon the
track of said road, as they had lawful right to
do"
How is this? How came the Company by this
land q? Has the route been surveyed? Is the
line of the Railro I'd laid out and esicnatcd p
DO the Company know precisely that the section
alluded to belongs to them that it is the right
section, or is it mere sham operation? 1t is
very strange that the trc>paSs should have been
committed in GooIhue Co.,, IN Territory,
when the proper place to have commenced work,
accord n to the charter, would have been at Lake
Superior hut this did not sut the purposes of
the ompany ther, fore the suit hrou yht in
Mimi e>o.a, i'll obscure corner of our Territory,
to get the matter out of the h, nds of the people,
as before remarked being fearful of their
power.
Sd The plils. RELY that the Act of Congress of
9th of June. repealed by the Act of the th
of August, 1854.
Now. TO Us. here appears to he the strongest
point. The reply of the plifs. is simply above,
and this is put uron The record without any al
lodged fraud or alteration. The Court cannot go
back of the record. and when the comes to
trial. if this is the onIy ISSUE the chances for the