The weekly Minnesotian. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1852-1858, 1855-01-06
The Nj. and n. w. Railroad.

The Democrat of Saturday last publishes the
following letter, from one of the Attorneys OF
the NJ. and N. W. r. r. Co, to citizen of ST.
Paul:
No 61. WALL STREET New YORK, !
December Is, 1854.
DEAR SIR Since my last, have seen the
article in the Times, there alluded to.
The question raised by the Times editor is in
a nutshell. His point is that the pleadings
should have raised an issue as to whether the
granting act ever, in fact. passed or not
There are two answers to this,-each ofwhict
is, in itself, conclusive.
First.-Every lawyer knows that the act en-
rolled in the Office of the Secretary of State OF
the United States, and bearing the signatures
of the Speaker of the House, the President OF
the Senate and the President of the United
States, is the highest possible evidence of the
fact that the bill did pass as therein stated. 1t
is indeed, evidence offs high nature, that no
party, even in case offraud, can he permitted
to 60 behind it, for the purpose approving such
fraud. That exact question was expressly thus
decided By the Supreme Court of the United
States, in Fletcher o. Peck, to which l gave
you reference. There, the Legislature OF
Georgia had passed an act making an immense
grant of land to company for q mere nominal
consideration. The next Legislature repealed
the act unanimously. The grantees then bro t
a suit to test the validity of the grant and of
the repeating act. The court below permitted
the rty.opposing the validity of the grant to
show. by the testimony of the witnesses, that
such grant was obtained by fraud, "a majority
of the members of the Legislature having been
bribed.) They proved, indeed, such facts as
showed it to have been the most corrupt trans
action ever pcrpetrated by a legislative body.
And yet the Supreme Court held that all such
testimony beyond the certified copy of the act,
was improperly admitted and declared the
grant valid Notwithstanding the repeating
act. 't
Wheu. therefore, 1 exhibited to the L. S..
District Attorney an exemplifed copy of the
granting act. he rs a lawyer, received the same
as the highest possible evidence of the fact that
such act had really been passed by both houses,
and approved by the President and he would
have descended to the rank of pettifogger If
he had then required an issue to be made in
the pleadings as to whether such act did or did
not in fact. pass.
Secondly.-The repeating act of the 4th OF
August, says '.The bill entitled 'An act to aid
the Territory of Minnesota in the construction
of a railroad therein, ,chich passed the House
of Representatives ON the 10th Of June. 1854,
and which was approved 10y the President of
the United States on the goth OF June, 1854, be
and the same is hereby repealed" So that
Congress, even in the repeating act itself,
(Which originated in the House, expressly de-
clared that the act granting the lands did pass
the House on the 29th of June.
On the face OF all this, can any sane man see
how a respectable lawyer could put In Issue
the question as to whether the granting act did
or did not in fact, pass the House ?
have only to add, that when the case was
agreed upon, 1 placed before the District At
torney exemplified copies, from the State De-
partment of both the acts above alluded to.
This letter is not written for the justification
of either the District Attorney or his able as
sistant. Their defence is in more competent
hands than mine. But l desire to eXculpate
the company and its agents from a charge
which is calculated to induce the belief that
their success is dependant upon trick or
bubble.
Very Respectfully,
Your friend and ob't serv't.
JOHN NJ. BARBOUR.