Minnesota weekly times. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1854-1859, 1854-12-12
THURSDAY, DEC. Z, 1854.
THE RAILROAD SUIT.

THE RAILROAD SUIT. al nal
The Supreme Court met at the capitol yester-
day for the trial of the cause. The U. S. us M
N. W. r. R. Co. '' Io 1..ia ---
The company were represented by their Attor-
ney Edmund Rice, who in long and very ingen-
ious plea maintained that by their charter the
company acquired title in fee, to the lands the
moment the Act of Congress of June 80, became
a law and that no subsequent act of Congress
could divest them of that title.
The Assistant Dictrict Attorney replied in a
very able speech, and SO far as his pleadings went
did the subject justice, we think. But serious
and we fear fatal error was committed in his OBJ.
stinately refusing to plead the Fraud.
The Attorney for the U. S. contended:
lst. That that portion of the charter under
which defendants claimed was void, because II
conAicted with the 9th section of the organic act
which says that the legislative assembly shall
ave no power to pass any law interfering with
the primary disposal Of the soil:
End. That no right in fee could vest which res
ted upon contingency TO be performed, and took
effect at a future day.
Sd. That the Territory, according to the express
terms of the act did not acquire right to the
land until 20 miles of continuous road was finish
ed;and that the company claiming under or thro'gh
them could not become invested with right be-
fore the Territory under which they claimed, and,
that consequently at the time of the repeal of the
act no right had vested anywhere, and that there
fore the act of repeal was valid.
4th. That the company were prohibited by the
express term of the act B. from ever acquiring
an interest in said lands as they were constituted
and in fact organized, at the time of the passage
of the act-the fact of such intention being also
substantiated by the Act of Congress in repeating
the bill.
5th. That that part of sec. which says:
ssAnd be it further enacted that the lands here
by granted to the said Territory shall be subject
to the disposal of any Legislature thereof ?" re-
ferred to some future Legislature, and with just
much binding force as if the much mooted word
future" had remained in the Bill.
These were the main points in Mr.. Brisbn's
plea, and to our mind, he substantiated every one
of them. These we repeat were very good as far
as they went, but we fear just good enough not
to win; whereas had the damning fraud by which
the Company claim their right, been spread upon
the record the case could not but have terminated
in verdict of guilty against the Company. The
feelings of the Attorney for the U. S. were evi-
IDENTIFY with the Company. In the course of his
remarks upon the 5th point of our review he said,
that the act was just plain in its meaning as
if the word sfture,' about which the great little
men of Minnesota had made so much noise had
been retained" At whom was this slur cast
evidently, at those who have been laboring with
out fee or reward to protect the very interests
which he is both sworm and paid to defend. If
the officer of the Government has betrayed his
client, which We much fear, he should be careful
not to let his feelings betray him.
Mr.. B. said as to the pleadings in the case the
District Attorney and himself held themselves re-
sponsibe,--this will doubtless be very consoling
to the people to reflect upon after their has
been lost through the mismanagement or treachery
of counsel. We believe that no one will contend
with them for SHIRE of the honors.
Gov. German followed Mr.. Brisbin in an able
speech contending- e....t....
lst. That Congress had an undeniable power to
repeal laws under which rights had vested, citing
many instances in point.
I'd. That the Company was organized at the
time of the passage of the Act of 29th June, as
shown by various official acts performed by them,
and by admissions in their own pleadings.
MIR. Rice replied to Gov. German.
The arguments in this case would appear to
one not versed in the technicalties of the law to
be conclusive against the Company, and we have
always SO regarded them; but as they are the
same made before Chief Justice Wech in the
Court below and by him pronounced insufficient,
we suppose they were drawn with an eye to de-
ceive the people by making them just strong
enough not to withstand the strict rules of law,
and we consequently have every reason to expect
the decision of the court below will be affirmed.
We shall keep our readers advised of the progress
of this suit, and shall probably take occasion to
refer to it at length when the decision of the court
is made public.