Minnesota weekly times. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1854-1859, 1854-09-05
TUESDAY, SEPT. s, 1854.
1T Is NECESSARY

IT Is NECESSARY
To Judge correctly of the railroad subject un-
der discussion, to follow all the parties closely
and see what motives actuated them in their course.
To do this, we shall briefly review, from day to
day, the testimony adduced before the committee,
in hopes that our readers will bear with us until
the matter is finally disposed of.
Mr.. Billings is on the stand, and here we come
to our Twelfth point.-This gentleman was the
6nancier of the Wall street company-was sent
to Washington to act for the company-to aid in
getting through grant of land for the company,
and who knew the desires and aims of the COM
pany. It was necessary for him to have frequent
interviews with H. M. Rice. H. M. Rice was be-
fore the committee when the bill was read, and
knew that the words &C future" and g. or" were
Mr.. Billings knew from the inception of the mat
ter the whole train of proceedings which were to
be followed out.
His testimony as to his not knowing anything
about the original bill, therefore, is worth just
what an intelligent community have mind to
estimate it. Our own opinion is, that he saw and
knew what was in the bill long before it was
printed.
Mr.. Washburne may have been governed in his
action by desire to advance the interests of GA
lena. Be this as it may, his denunciation of the
fraud shows that he was not party to it, and
that he is deserving of the position he has so ably
filed.
differentiation. Hestor L. Stevens says that
the first person who spoke to him about the altera-
ton, was Mr.. Billings. Mr.. Billings in his testi
mony says nothing about this, but carries the idea
that his attention was first called to the alteration
before the committee; he then goes on to divert
attention from the main point, and to throw odium
on Mr.. Washburne. Mr.. Billings wanted it altered
so that the present legislature could act on the
subject" while at the same time he knew, and Mr..
Rice knew that such course would not meet with
the wishes of the people of Minnesota, and that
the object of the bill was to refer the subject to
future Legislation, and to no other. Further, Mr..
Stevens says that Mr.. Billings wanted the section
altered so that ga company (the Wall-st., of
which he was god-father,) could be the recipient
of the grant under the action Of the legislature"
Does any body suppose that Mr.. Billings did not
know all about this matter-from the beginning
to the end?
Fourteenth Jones, of Iowa, in his test
mony, stated that he knew the alteration ,cas made
but that he knew not who by, when, where, or
how, nor did he know anything further about the
matter. Mr.. Stevens says that ssMr. Jones spoke
first to him on the subject and pointed out the
words sor' and 'and,' remarking, that slight
alterations had been made in bills, otherwise than
by the action of the House, Has Mr.. Jones
committed perjury? Mr.. Billings, Mr.. Patton
and Mr.. Stevens, all testify against him. Either
they have committed perjury or Mr.. Jones.
Fiftecnth.-It is somewhat remarkable that not
one of those Senators who conversed with Mr..
Stevens, had any object in making the alteration
Why the desire to have the alteration made p
We won't insult the intelligence of our readers
by dwelling upon this point. All know that if
the object was not to enable the Wall street COM
pany to get hold of the lands the alteration would
not have been made.
Sixteenth-Mr. Stevens, who, during the in
ception, progression and contamination Of the
bill, was {" check by jowl" with Henry NJ. Rice,
who, if we are informed correctly, is an old
friend of II. M. Rice-who came from the same
section of country from whence hollis II. Nj. Rice
into whose hands the bill was referred at the
suggestion of ii. NJ. Ricc--this same Mr.. Stevens,
affects total ignorance of the whole matter-he
did not explain the alteration before the commit
mttee; in fact did not know that the altering of
the words &c future'' and "or" would affect the
meaning Of the bill !! Where was MIR. Rice ali
this while? Did he know what Mr.. Stevens was
doing? Did he not know that Mr.. Sibley and
Gov. German expressly stated TO him, before the
committee, the necessity for these words? Is it
to be supposed that when MIR. Rice wished the bill
referred to Mr.. Stevens, that he did not explain
this matter to Mr.. Stevens, and that Mr.. Stevens
knew full well the result of the alteration?
How could man with the intelligenc of Mr..
Stevens make such alteration without know
ing the effect it would have? Becoming little
frightened, when he finds himself caught he
earnestly protests his ignorance and 'upon HONOR,
asserts that he knows nothing of the effect of the
altering of the words. He also calls upon God
to witness his innocence. A more bare faced,
shameful perversion Of justice, never enacted.
We do not envy the very delicate situation of Mr..
Stevens, whose further testimony we shall follow
up tomorrow.