The daily Minnesota pioneer. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1854-1855, 1854-12-06

for the corruption or ignorance standing
out with an ,unblushing impudence upon
the record, but only JoHN B. BR1sBlN, ESD,
the Attorney who acts as his deputy, and
who conducted the proceedings in Court.
The authoritative tone, however, assumed
by the latter in justifying the past, and
designating the future, action of the prose-
cution, in the article above quoted, permits
the assumption that he reflects the senti-
ments Of bis superior, and forces us, in our
comments hereafter, to consider the officer
instead of the iadiridual. If JOHN E..
WARREN, Esq, u s. District Attorney of
Minnesota, allows himself to be absorbed
professionally and personally, by the brains
or breeches pocket Of his deputy, it is clearly
matter of taste with him, and not of
volition withus. The personalities INDUCED
in by Mr.. BRIsBIN, are not pertinent to the
subject, and will not be replied to. He
owes the distinction of q notice in our
columns not to any considerations personal
to himself, but to the accidency of his posi-
ton in connexion with stupendous judicial
fraud.
The assertion of an error on our part, in
relation to the notice required by the Compa-
ny's charter, we have no hesitation in admit
ting, without troubling ourself to recur at
present to the charter itself. 1t was not in
trOduced as the basis of our structures upon
the pleadings, but only as cumulative evil
dence, with which we can very well afford
to dispense. 1t neither adds to, nor detracts
from, the force of our charge, and its DEM
Onstration, that mo issue of fact whatever
is made by the pleadings, and even the issue
of law upon which the case as it now stands
must be decided, is one which appears to
have been made up for the convenience and
advantage of the Company; and in which
the interests of the general government,
and Of the PEOPLE Of Minnesota, are utterly
ignored and disregarded."
We review again the character of the
pleadings in this case. The United States
complains of the Minnesota and Northwes-
tern Railroad Company, for trespass com
mitted on the public lands. The Company,
in answer, sets forth the act of the Terri
torial Legislature, of the 4th of March,
1854, by which the Company was incorpo-
rated, and through which all lands thereaf-
ter granted to the Territory, were to inure
to the Company without deed or any further
act /; the fulfilment by the Company of all
its requirements and the act of Congress,
approved June 29th, 1854, making a grant
for such purposes to the Territory and
AYERS that the trespasses complained of were
committed by the Company in carrying out
the requirements of the charter, in the con-
stru ton Of its road. The reply Of the Dis
trlct Attorney simply AYERS that the act of
Congress of the 29th of June, was repealed
by the act Of the 4th of August, 1854; to
which the Company demurs
Upon the issue thus made up by the
United States District Attorney, there can
not be the shadow of a doubt as to the
failure of the prosecution. But this issue
is an utterly false one-so known, of neces-
sity, by the prosecuting attorney, as we'll
as by the attorneys for the Company.
The act of Congress of the goth of June,
1854, is not legal act. The proofs of its
illegality are before the whole country, in
the solemnly attested records of Congress.
The Constitution of the United States pre-
scribes the mode by which laws shall be ell
acted-theirpassage in regular form through
the House of Representatives, and the Sem
ate of the United States, and their sigma
ture by the President; or in case of veto,
their repassage through the two Houses by
a two-thirds vote. BY neither of these
constitutional processes was the act of the
10th Of June last ever made law.
The majority of the Committee appoint
BY the House of Representatives, to inves-
sigate, and report upon, the fraud commit
led on the Minnesota Land Bill, state, af-
Ter reviewing the testimony given before
The Committee:
Your Committee therefore report. that