The daily Minnesota pioneer. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1854-1855, 1854-12-02

be esnted by such act of Congress, as its
prcpefty. We regret the necessity ofsstar
ting the conviction, which careful exami.
nation Of che pleadings above copied, forces
upon US, that the management of the cause
thus far on the part of the United States,
evinces degree of imbecility or corruption,
equaHed only by the amazing impudence of
the company itself.
That We may demonstrate to the public
that we are doing no injustice either to the
company, or to the sworn guardians of the
interests Of the government and the people,
we proceed to examine these pleadings in
detail, and to state their effect upon the in
tcrests involved. ..s.'. =, 10 '.'' . -
The action instituted by the United States
District Attorney, through his assistant,
JOHN B. BRIsBlN, Esq, is one of Trespass.
The complaint alleges, in substance, the cut
ting and carrying away of five hundred oak
trees by the defendants, on the 18th of o.
tober, 1854, from the close Of the plaintiff,
on section 3, in township liz, inthe coun-
ty of Goodhue. os . .,.7 f.y a.fr
The answer of the Minnesota and North.
western Railroad Company sets forth, in
justification, the act of the Territorial Leg
islature, of the 4th of March, 1854, by
which the defendants we're Incorporated, and
the act Of Congress, approved the 9th Of
June, 1854, by which certain lands were
donated and granted to the Territory to aid
in the construction of railroad The an
swer then proceeds to state at great length
the steps taken, and proceedings had, by
which the defendants organized as COM
pany, under the act Of incorporation passed
by the Territorial Legislature, and AYERS
that the company has in all things complied
with the requirements Of its charter, speci
flying dates, &c-that it had located the
road upon and across the lands described in
the complaint-and that the acts complain
ed of were committed by the agents, en-
ployees, and servants of the company in the
necessary construction of the road across
he premises, and within and upon the track
of said road, as they had lawful right to
do. In addition, the answer processes to
state with particularly, other acts and pro-
ceedings of the company-its several meet
ings in the city of New York-the giving
notice of acceptance of their charter-the
opening of books for subscriptions of stock,
both in New York and st. Paul--previous
notice given by publication in the papers
the subscription of upwards of two millions
of the stock-the payment of ten per cent.
by subscribers on the amount of ther sub
scriptions- the company was complete
ly organized, and had acquired vested rights
in the lands before Congress repealed the
grant.
All Of these things are set forth in the
answer of the Company, and alleged to be
matters of fact. They are issuable facts,
upon which the United States, as plaintiff,
might take issue by replication, and throw
upon the defendants the proof of their al
legations. But this has not been done The
reply on the part of the government does
not put in issue single point set up in the
answer but simply states that the act of
Congress, approved the 29th Of June, 1854,
was repealed by the second section of the
act of Congress of the 4th of August, 1854
Consequently, every averment in the answer
of the Company, stands admitted on the re-
cord by the United States. The fraudu-
lent acts and forgery of the defendants, or
their agents, in procuring the alteration of
the act of Congress of the 29th of June,
while pending as bill in the Senate, before
its passage,-and the illegal organization of
the company afterwards 49, facts which in
duced both Houses Of Congress, by over
whelming majorities, to repeal the grant of
land to the Territory, are not set out by the
District Attorney, nor stated in the reply by
way Of avoidance Of the Act set up in the
answer, under which the defendants justify.
These facts, which are notorious, and sus-
ceptible Of irrefragible proof, would, either
of them, have been sufficient to sustain the
action. All that was required to bring the
case before the Court upon its merits was