Minnesota weekly times. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1854-1859, 1854-10-03
af(mntsota Ulm(ts,
FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 20. 1854.
BRICK ENRIDGEyON RICE.

The course of Kice's big organ, the Democrat,
and his li.t!e jews-harp, the Minncsotan, in de-
Tending him against the charges already proved
upon him by his own OATH the oaths Of his con-
fedcrates IN crime, rs well as the sworn state
mcnts Of third parties, were it not intended to
bolster Mp Gigantic scheme of villainv, would
be the richest and most laughablc burlesque of
the season. Ii is Gn established principle Of law
that the state may avail itself Of the sworn evil
dcnce Of one criminal to convict his confederates.
but il remained for the wise men of the Wall
Street swinale to make the discovery tina. the IL
responsible statements Of convicted accomplicoS
may be used to disprove charges already estab
lished by Tia. solemn oaths Of Il multitude Of Wit
ncsses; but the plan conceived is put into
immediate execution, and so beautifully does 1t
work, and so lucid and overwhelming is the eyi
dcnce thereby obtained that, should the Wall
Street harpies succeed in carrying Legislature
the coming election, we expect to see the new
law of evidence crgrafted upon their favorite
Minnesota Code and adopted as the rule Of prac-
tice in courts.
After the publication Of the testimony, and
the accompanying whit washing report, the pub
lie had the .tucts before them, and were Just rs
capable Of Judging Of the merits Of the case as
were the members of Congress to whom the let
ter Of Mr.. Rice's friends was addressed. These
members had already been heard upon their
oaths. and they were bound to tell all they
knew in regard to the question at issue, and if
they then held back any important facts of which
they had knowledge, they were just as guilty of
violation of their solemn oaths, in the eyes of
God, and all honest men Is though they had de-
clarc what they knew to b. falsc--,hat they did
lo,h, We think there can be no question.
Under these circumstances the letter Of Mr..
Rice's friends is gross insult to the intelligence
and honesty of the people Of Minnesota; and
were the men to whom the letter addressed
capable of being insu!ted, II would be still
greater indignitv to them. 1t IS saving, in sub
stance, ''gentlemcn, you have shown yourselves
fast witnesses: you have sworn TO almost every
thing, but more is wanted: your evidence was
contradictory, and hy it, and TIE evidence of
those wicked men who think it wrong to steal,
our delegate has been involved in very dirty
scrapc--.ly to the rescue. you have all you
dare Srear. nor sag all yoW dare not s,rear!-
Save or re perish.''' This is about the real
meaning of the letter, and astonished,
surprised and mortified to see appended TO that
letter the names of men from whom we had
hoped better things.
The first witness introduced by the Democrat
is breckenridge, Of Kentucky, who, it informs its
readers was the leader Of the Democracy in the
House last winter.
Mr.. breckenridge himself, in his report con-
dennis the fraud, anc yet he row comes forward
to shield those who are implicated.
But that the people may better understand what
position Mr.. b., really does occupy. we give the
following extract from letter written by gen
tleman Of unimpeachable character who was
present during the investigation:
s:The investigation was q withdrawing affair.
The three locofocos on the committee would have
been glad to have saved the swindcrs. Brecken-
ridge, nothing more nor less than their cham
pion on the committee, and in constant commune
cation with Billings. lie Is interested in Superb
or City, and is of Rcc'a men. Jones, Rice,
breckenridge, Douglas, Bright Of Indiana,
all Interested there. rs have understood"
This explains what has heretofore been mys-
terry to many, that's, how after hearing evidence
clearly conyict;ns the Wall Street swindlcrs Of
altering the record, in order TO transfer
million acres OF land from the control Of tu-
iure legislature Of the territory and place it at
tHci1 ONll lSpOoNL '''hAohic ltrl
he could declare in his report as chairman of
that committee that no one was TO blame for this
enormous forgery.
This may account TOO for another singular fact
connected with the Investigation, which is, that
rs often as Billings was cornercd in his false
statements, which was very often, he was immc-
diatcly recalled and sworc h:msclf out of one lie
and into another with as much dcxtcritv as his
tools here have always exhibited in like delicate
circumstances.
Mr.. Il. in his response, however, gives no new
light in the case, but endorses Rice in general
terms, making OCCASIONALLY point, and hitting
his friends a often as his enemies. He SAYS:
..rhc Committee Of Investigation (of which
was mcmber,) examined the suhcc pretty thor
oughly. and took good deal Of testimony, which
shows, clearly, the circumstances connected with
the change. and the parties by whom it was made"
There, gentlemen. You are very coolly referred
to the record from which you have appealed, and
every line Of which you feel to b. rcplete with
evidence of damning guilt, so much so that YOU
dared not base your defence upon it. But by way
of letting You down easy, Mr.. Il. very nnocently
expresses his surprise that any one should con-
slider Nj. Rice implicated by that evidence =
one who had already declared under the sanction
of an official oath chat no one was to blamc
In speaking of the causes of the repeal of the
Bill, Mr.. Il. says:
''Pcrhaps. after the matter was brought before
the House, ma jority acted on the idea, that it
was due to the body, thus to show its disaproba-
lion of any change in the bill, subsequent to the
vote in that body"
Here it is the very reason that We have always
assigned. viz: the act of the forgers themselves.
This it was, and it is now proved upon them by
the only witness whose evidence would have had
apartice of weight with the public, that they
have yet brought out.
In opposition to Mr.. BIS. endorsement Of Mr..
Rice, We have no better rebuttng evidence than
Mr.. Ricc'S statement under oath: poor as it is we
must still offer it. On his examination beforesthe
committee, Mr.. Rice, being duly sworn, s.id
The first time he had seen the bill was when
it was before the Committee on Public Lands.
lie knew nothing about the Bill or the atera-
tions, for what purpose the alterations were
made! but was told by Billings that the Bill suited
Washburne.
Knew Billings by sight. Did not know what
Company he was operating for!
Didn't know ANYTHING about the charter grant
l. l-l