The daily Minnesota pioneer. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1854-1855, 1855-01-30

why the company should not build the road /
And will this Assembly do an act of the great
est injustice, because an individual has perpe-
trated q fraud! ga
If 80, whose property or liberty is secure
In the acts regarding the Territories of Nebras-
ka and Kansas, no power of disapproval by
Congress is reserved. A good principle was
established by those acts, to wit that the peo-
pie of the Territories possess the right of self
government principle for which our colonial
ancestors constantly struggled and finally
maintained.
Many of our greatest statesmen Of the pre-
sent day have labored strenuOusly for the re-
cognition of this right by the General Govern
ment, and now that it has been recognized,
how poorly should We appear to appreciate the
position OF independence in which it has placed
us by asking Congress to veto our laws! What
a reproach upon our people! What an insult
to their intelligence! What an act of legisla-
tive stultifcation What an indication of
weakness! What evidence of pusillanimous
| councils! five have enacted laws that need
| correction, if we have made contracts that seem
to be too favorable to the other contract
| ing parties, let us amend those laws and seek,
by an honorable understanding to obtain mod
fcation of those contracts, but let us never &C
knowledge the right OF Congress to annihilate
our enactments for upon them depend the
safety of our persons, the security of our liber-
| ties, and the stability of our property. All the
| rights of property vested under former laws
and under the judgments of our courts, based
npOn those laws may, if we acknowledge the
right in this instance, be swept away by one
annihlating act of Congress
Nay, what will become of the hundreds and
hundreds of thousand of dollars, belonging to
the stockholders of the ST. Croix Boom Compa-
ny, the Mississippi Boom Company, the Rum
River Boom Company, the Minneapolis & St.
Anthony Bridge Company, the st. Anthony
Boom Company, the st. Paul Fire and Marine
Insurance Company and the property held I'M
der numerous Ferry charters, if this or any
other Legislature should recognize the princi
pie that Congress has power to disapprOve of
those charters? Would it not be establishing
a most dangerous precedent?
These charters and the one under consider
alton must stand or fall upon the same princi
pie. No one will pretend that the charter of
this company conflicts with any law of Congress
or is repugnant to the Constitution. If it is
not what has Congress to do with it? Does it
interfere in any way with the policy of the gen
eral government? If ot,why should Congress
NEEDLE with it? Surely, the only object Of
that provision in our organic act reserving the
right to Congress to disapprove our laws, is to
give that body instead OF the Courts, power to
declare such acts void, as are manitestly in
conflict with the Constitution or laws, or poll
cy of the general government. 1t could have
no other object. 1t will be conceded that we
cannot ourselves annul the charter. Why not?
Because, it is contract, and rights have vested
under it. 1t would be unjust, nay, dishonest
to destroy those rights. And is there any one
prepared to say that Congress may do au act
manifestly dishonest? That an arbitrary pow
er resides in the general government to take
one mans property and give it to another, or
tab
out making just compensation to the owner p
If such were the fact, we should have much less
reason to be proud of our country and our in
stutiOns True we have the right to repeal all
general laws, and it may be that Congress has
power to disapprove them, but when we make
a solemn legislative contract, relating to a
rightful subject of legislation, under which
rights have vested it is submitted that neither
this Assembly nor Congress have the power to
annul such contract and divest those rights.
Thisquestion has been settled by our Courts,
whose judgments, until reversed, are binding,
and which we cannot supercede.
The District Court of Goodhue County, Chief
Justice Welch presiding decided,
First By the act of Congress, approved
June 10Th, 1854, granting certain lands to the
Territory of Minnesota, to aid said Territory
in constructing Railroad, the Territory co in
sfant upon the passage of the act, acquired an
interest and property in the lands granted W hich
the Territory could grant and convey.
Second, BY the act of the Legislature of
Minnesota Incorporating the Minnesota and
North Western Railroad Company the said
Company acquired an interest and property in
all the lands subsequently granted by Congress
to the Territory for the purpose of the Road
which interest became vested in said Company
Immediately upon the passage of the act of
Congress and the organization Of the COmpa
ny.
Third. The second section of the act of
Congress passed August 4th 1854 repeating the
first mentioned act of Congress, is repugnant
not only to the Constitution of the United
States, but also to great and fundamental prin-
clpes which have been recognized from time
immemorial wherever the common law pre-
walls.
And that decision has been affirmed by the
Supreme Court of the Territory. BY this we
perceive that there is certainty that the grant
OF lands is not lost that such calamity is
spared US, and that too by the action of this
very company. Shall we relnquish what we
nave certainly got, for what we may possibly
get! After witnessing the defeat of the nu-
merous and meritorious applications to Con-
gress for similar grants, backed by a strong
combination ofall the Representatives and SEN
ators from the States to be benefited by them,
and after reading the late message of the Pres
ldent on that subject, endorsed as it is by his
Saoinet ana powerful party In Congress, as
we'll as by all the Representatives of all the
old States, can we reasonably expect that
another grant would be made to our feeble
Territory, with but single Delegate in Con-
gress, and be having no vote?
1t is now the settled policy of this admins
traton at least, that no more grants shall be
made, and it is vain to hope that during the
present short session of Congress any will be
made. Would it not be folly then to discard
the certainty of the future and risk all upon a
mere presumption of what Congress may do?-
AS we have seen, the Supreme Court has de-
cidcd that q right to the lands already granted