Minnesota weekly times. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1854-1859, 1854-07-18
could fully comprehend the nature of the amend

could fully comprehend the nature Of the amend
ments, it soas pushed through in manner which
will never be forgotten by those who witnessed
the scene. Amid the most intense excitement,
gentlemen rushing to and fro to procure sigma
lures to petition for the Governor to sign the
Bill-amid imprecations of some and the loud
talk of others, we think early Sunday morning, the
Governor signed the Bill, and this is the manner
in which the bantling which the editor of the
Mnnesotian takes to his bosom, was born. This
is the contest through which the friends of the i'll
passed Gas calm as May morning." This is the
occasion when not s'breeze agitated the hair
upon their heads" 1t was 'scalm'' time, very.
The friends of the Bill were 'scalm'' with petit
tions in their hands praying the people to sign
them to induce the Governor to put his signature
to the Bill. 1t was sscalm'' time, very, when
a worthy citizen was aroused from his sleep at the
dead of night by the friends of the Bill to pro-
cure signatures 1t was as s'calm as a May morn
ing"-it was very 'scalm" time. GAS far as the
friends of the Bill was concerned" it was ex-
ceedingly "calm." Those who were present
know it was "calm'' time-certainly it was
''calm''-thc Minnesotian says so.
In reply to our remarks that the editor of the
Mnnesotian had misrepresented us as to our be-
ing favorable to the charter last winter, he saws:
"We took him at his word then and we do the
same now." The insnuation that we told the
editor last winter that we were favorable to the
charter passed by the Legislature, is a base, will
full, malicious insinuation, unworthy any one who
lays claim to responsibility. We WERE favorable
to grant of land then, and arc now, but we new
were favorable to the manner in which the char
ter was rushed through the Legislature lat IL
O'Clock on the night of the passage of the Bill,
we refused to sign petition asking for the siga-
ture of the Gov. 1t was we'll known to gentlemen
who conversed with us at that time, that we were
unfavorably disposed to the charter, and had we
been in a position to combat it effectually, we
should have done so. This, certainly the editor
of the Minnesotian knew when he penned his ar
ticle, and yet he would lead the community to be-
lieve that we had changed our views. We leave
him to enjoy whatever pleasure he may derive
from unjustly disappearing us.
Having thus answered the objections of the
Minnesotian, we again recur to our first premises,
viz DO the company formed in New York on
the LIST of July claim the charter passed by our
Legislature last fall, and if so, on what grounds:
Does the act giving to Minnesota the grant OF
land for Railroad purposes, justify the company
in claiming that charter? Does not the clause
''SHALL BE subject to any Legislature thereof
apply to future Legislation? How came the word
OR taken out and the word AND inserted in the
third section? Is there not s'skullduggery'' at
the bottom of the whole of this matter? When
the Minnesotian answers these questions, we will
continue the discussion, but until then we shall
leave him with all his ''errors of Judgment" to
the course he has marked out on one of the most
important subjects which at present interests Min
nesOta.