Minnesota weekly times. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1854-1859, 1854-07-18
THURSDAY, JULY l3, 1854.
THE MINNEsor1AN AND THE RAILROAD


will give the company just formed in New York
or any other company which may be formed, and
how much benefit will accrue to our Territory
from the passage of the charter and the construc-
ton of the road.'' Our remarks were based up
on the ground that the Bill excluded all previous
legislation on the subject, (and such was the re-
port of the character of the new bill written
by Mr.. Sibley) and if such was the fact, as a
matter Of course, the Legislature would be called
upon to grant new charter, and in granting that
charter, we claimed that Minnesota could make a
far better bargain than that consummated by the
Legislature of last fall. On examining the Bill,
however, as certified 10 by the clerk, we find no
such clause, but simply this:
SEC. 3. And be Il further enacted, That the
said lands hereby granted to the said Territory
shall be subject to the disposal Of any Legislature
thereof, for the purpose aforesaid and no other,
nor shall they enure to the benefit of any compa-
ny heretofore constituted or organized, and the
said railroad shall be and remain public high
way for the use of the government of the United
States, free from toll or other charge upon the
transportation Of any property Or troops of the
q. S., nor shall any of the said lands become
subject to private entry until the shall have
been first offered for public sale at the increased
price.
1t will be observed by this that there is nothing
said in this section relative to previous legislation
but merely 'ssubject to the disposal of any Legis-
lature thereof" Now, here arises question:
If the old charter is Valid then of what any
legislative enactment? Has not the charter pas
sed out of the hands of the egislature-has it not
been accepted by the company organized-does it
Ot ha1 fO at &c M
use for further legislation. But it strikes us, and
it is the opinion of eminent legal gentlemen, that
it was the intention of Congress to null the old
charter, (and hence the clause subject to the dis
posal Of any legislature thereof" and the Legis-
lature to grant new one. 1t certainly couldn't
mean past legislation, for this is new bill, and
past legislation could have no Jurisdiction over
it. And then if it meant past legislation, why
was not the word past inserted? Besides, mark
sal of any legislature thereof,'' and not are sub
ject, &C., as it should be, if it was intended to
apply to the old charter. 1t seems to us that
Congress intended that this clause should apply to
a new charter, and viewing the matter in this
light, have felt disposed to let the subject rest
until the time Of the sitting Of the legisla-
ture, and then SO place it before the public, that
our people could act understandngy and harino-
niously. If we are in error we should be glad to
be set right.
We have never denied that the Company recent
" formed in New York had u right to the lands.
Ne have only contcnded that it was necessary for
the Legislature to pass aetc charter before ony
company could avail themselves of the provisions
of the Bill just passed by Congress. This we
distinctly put forth in article which the Mn
nesotian quotes, and which by reference to it
again, he will observe is exceedingly explicit on
this point. On referring to the Sd section how
cycr We find the word ''cOnsfauted'' used, which
leads us TO believe tat if the old charter is not
binding, the present company cannot hold the
lands, because there is 10 charter as yet enacted
to constitute them body polite, but on the 9th
er hand if the Old charter is binding, then the
lands must enure to the company organized on
the Doth of June.
The only question we raise is--s'Do2s the Bill
give the present company the right to commence
operations under the old charter, or does it make
it incumbent on the Legislature to pass nelo
charter. If the former, then there of say
ing anything further on the subject, and if the
latter, (and this is the general opinion) then we
have right to agtate the subject and prepare
the public mind to fully comprehend the bearings
of the Bill in all it's lights and shades.
In thus alluding to this matter we wish it dis
tnctly understood that are not opposed to the
construction of railroads, or liberal grants Of lands
for such, but we are opposed to hasty legisa-
ton on matter of so much Importance to Min
nesota as the one at present under discussion. 1t
is we'll known that the very charter which the
New York company claim to be organized under,
and by which they consider the right to the grant
of land just passed, was rushed through the Leg
islature last year with the mpetuosity of whirl-
wind, and that then and at the present time, there
is division of feeling among our citizens on the
subject. 1t was generally understood when the
ner bill for grant of land was introduced into
Congress that that would heal the difficulty by
killing the old charter, and affording ample time
for the Legislature to frame and pass new char
ter which would give better satisfaction than the
one previously passed.
How far this Bill meets the views of the COM
munitv, is yet to be seen, but we believe that it
was the intention of the gentleman who drew it
up, that it should operate in the manner we have
described.
We entertain no doubt whatever but the Legis-
lature of Minnesota could sell the charter giving
away these lands for railroad purposes, for 49,
O0O,OOO How much do we get under the old
charter. Half that amount ?-one-third that
amount But, be this as it may, if we can be
convinced that the old charter enures to the s,eu
company, and that any further legislat on on
the subject is of no avail, thea we will take hold
and do what we can to forward the present en-
terprise, but so long as We entertain doubt On
the subject, the Minnesotian Will please excuse
us for exercising that amount of enthusiasm with
which it seems to be possessed.
Our contemporary will allow us to set him
right on point where he is greatly at fault
That is, that last winter VIC were ssone of the
frmest and most jealous defenders of the char
ter.'' This is not SO. We were eager and anx-
ious to see railroad built, and we are now, but
we did not approve of the manner in which that
charter was passed. as we thought that the Legis-
lature could have made great deal better bar
gain. We viewed the matter then in the same
light we do now-that Minnesota is young,
and that now is the time to secure her interests.
not for one or two years, but for all time. Once
secure, let railroad companies make money, but
until secure we should be extremely cautious how