Minnesota weekly times. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1854-1859, 1854-08-22
THURSDAY, AUG. II, 1854.
REPEAL OF THE MINNESOTA LAND BILL
FRAUDs-rORGERIES- ES-INTERPOLATIONS-
TRUCKS-H. M, RICE.

1t is well known to our citizens that the Bill for
the grant of land to aid Minnesotain the construc
| tion of Railroad, has been repealed, and it is
equally we'll known that the people of this Terri
tory and the presses of this city have been charg
ed by the organ of the Railroad company (the
Minnesotian) with the casse of that repeal, and
pied press. In justice to ourself well justice
to the people, and justice to violated faith, honor
and trust, we shall now proceed to demonstrate
scho is responsible for the fraud, and by what
means this fraud was consummated.
| The reason for the repeal of the Bill is plain.
1t provided that the lands thus granted should not
inure to the benefit of any company heretofore
constituted or organized.'' This clause was nser-
ted for the purpose of getting rid of the chartered
company created by the last Legislature. This
company and their friends at Washington, finding
the bill had passed in this shape safely through
the House, set their laborers at work to get the
word &c or' struck out and the word "and - in
serted, thus supposing that said company by Or
ganizng the next day, could get the land. Now,
whose interests was it to make o, have made this
| alteration? The interest of tie old chartered
company of last winter. Who go the word sor''
struck out !. The friends of the old charter
What was the cause of the repeal by Congress ?
The alteration of the Bill. Therefore, those who de-
sired the alteration and caused it te be done, gave
the House cause or pretext to repeal the Bill Upon
their heads be the guilt and the responsibility
Mark the forgery and the fraud.
| Mr.. Rice, our Delegate, and his friends here
were, as every body knows, the strong friends of
| the old company. Congress did not want the
old company to have the grant. Nj. Rice and his
friends in Washington and here in Minnesota, did
want the old company to have it. The bill as it
| passed took it from the old company. The alter
alton was made to give it back to the old compa-
ny. The old company met at the Bank of the Re-
public, in New York, on the lst Of July and or
gani-ed, when the bill was approved on the goth
of June, only giving "a or 4S hours notice for
persons interested in Minnesota to 90 to New York.
See the trick!
Now, we ask, as guardians Of the peoples in
terests, who knew SO well Mr.. Rice, the provis-
ions Of the old charter? Who knew SO we'll the
way to throw this land into the old company's
hands? Who was SO fully informed of the effects
Of striking out the word s'or'' and substituting
d!
swer-MR. RIOT he it was ,rI,o kneD all about
these things, and hence The alteration. Where ,cas
our delegate? Where has he been? What has
he been about? Why diI not the clerks Or mem
bers consult him about this matter? And if they
did, what was his reply? What docs he say p
Did all these members and clerks take much
interest in the affairs of Minnesota without even
consulting Mr.. Rice? Did General Stevens ever
ask Mr.. Rice as to his wishes upon the subject of
this alteration? Was it known to Mr.. Rice that
the word s'future" Legislation was struck out
before the bill was offered? If this word ss fu-
ture" legislation was once in the bill, did not Mr..
Rice know it was struck out? If so, ,ciy was
| that word 'sfuture'' struck out? This Uas the
commencement Of the fraud. General Stevens
says" intended to have altered the word sor'
to and, and thought had done it, and would
like to have it done now, if possible" Did H.
NJ. Rice ever ask Mr.. Stevens, in the presence of
witnesses to make that alteration ? Did he express
himself surprised after the bill passed the Senate
that the alterations were not made? Did he then
request that the alterations should be made, and
did not Gen. Stevens make the alterations at his
suggestion? These are questions we want Mr..
Rice's organ (the Minnesotian) to answer. What
has our delegate been about? Is it possible that
Congress would repeal an act which was for our
great benefit, if the Representative of her inter-
ests at Washington was perfectly innocent of all
connection or knowledge of this fraud and alter
alton of the bill? Would Intelligent mon strike
Minnesota tor the wrong of the members clerks
from other sections Of the Union, if her own mem
Der was not in some way implicated directly or
indirectly? If our Delegate did not favor, aid,
countcnance, procure, encourage or in any way
know of the doing of the deed, in the private
judgment and opinion of the members, would they
do so great wrong to a child Of the Govern
ment? We answer emphatically, no! There is
Disgusting the truth, that the interests of this
Territory have been sold by the cupidty and self
ishness Of one man-and that man is HENRY
NJ. RICE-for had Mr.. Rice protested against the
alterations before they were made or had he sought
to ascertain who made them after they were made,
Congress never would have repealed an Act which
was calculated to benefit our Territory. because
some disinterested persons altered the whole
ing of tho bill. Minnesota, in the pcreon of her
delegate, who was supposed to be honest and up
right, asked of Congress grant of land. Con-
gress gave her that grant of land in good faith,
when it is ascertained that Minnesota Tin the per-
son of her delegate) has deliberately committed
a fraud upon the very persons who worked for
her interests. What now? A spirit of indigna-
tion and contempt follows, and the former friends
of Minnesota turn round and divest Minnesota of
100000 acres of land, solely because they have
been imposed upon by the Delegate who prete,,ds
to represent and guard her interests. .-~
Here is the sequel to this matter. Shall the
people suffer because one man has lent his inlu-
ence towards the consummation of a fraud p
Shall those who sought to expose the fraud, suffer
for the acts of false Delegate? Who knew the
precise bearing of the words sand" and " or %
| in the bill /? II. NJ. RICE. Who has an interest
at the contemplated terminus Of the road? II.
NJ. RICE. Who knew the wishes of the persons
who drew up the bill? H. NJ. RICE. Who was
Informed that with the words &c future" and "or''
in the bill, it would receive the sanction Of the
citizens of Minnesots,-without them, it would
| not? q. NJ RICE. Who knew the feelings, mo-
| tives, actions of the Wall street Company? H.
NJ. RICE. How came the bill to be repealed p
Through the indifference or injurious interference
of b. NJ. RICE. Who is responsible for the loss
of the grant9 h. N. RICE. Upon whom rests
the responsibility? Upon the head Of H. N. Rice,