The daily Minnesota pioneer. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1854-1855, 1855-04-13


Co.,-SSd Congress, 2nd Session.
Mr.. EDITog:-I have read the discussion
had in the Senate of the United States on the
repeal of the charter of the NJ. & N. W. F..
Il. Company, as reported in two of the papers
of this city, and more deceptive handling of
a matter have never known before commit
ted by gentlemen who profess to be Legisla-
tors and Statesmen, legislating for their conn
try's honor and welfare. But to show the falla-
cies and present the CLOSES by which Senators
COOPER and DOUGLASS were enabled to carry
their points. l proceed at once to the dissec-
ton of their arguments.
Mr.. COOPER, in giving history of the Ter
ritorial and Congressional Legislative Acts in
relation to this Company, uses the following
language:
Afterwards, as l have stated, on the 4th
Of August, Congress passed an Act repeating
the Act Of June %, in consequence of some
irregularity which took place in relation to the
bill, but about which Minnesota had no con-
Germ, with which it was connected in no de-
gree whatever"
Had no concern! Was in no degree con-
nected! Is not the honor of Congress and
the purity of Congressional legislation Of as
much concern to virtuous and intelligent
Territory rs it is to any other part of the Re
public? Is it not matter of concern. yea of
deep concern, of more concern to this Terrific
~ than it is to any State of this Union, what
kind Of body corporate they are to have ever
gnawing upon its vitals whether that body
be one legally and honestly holding the lands
which Congress had granted to the Territory F;
or one which had lraudulently wrenched them
from Congress and the Territory, by forged
law?
Mr.. COOPER goes on to say in relation to
this irregularity"-a very soft expression for
downright fraud" that it was the mere
substitution Of the word and for or" Now
what honesty or trustworthiness as Legisla-
tor can that man possess who could thus light
ly speak of the greatest National Legislative
fraud that this country has ever witnessed.
But Mr. COOPER in the Advocate forgets his
duties as Legislator and while he is permitted
by the laws of his country to be present in the
Senate to make just laws and deal fairly to oil
parties, he does not hesitate to blink the truth
by hiding himself behind the diminutiveness of
the particles or" and and )" and seek thus
to mislcad his fellow men. AS a pettifoger be
can attempt to make out a triaing change of
phraseOlogy, as of no consequence; but as a
Legislator of whom the country expects ingen-
uousness and candor, he does not care to show
that this triAing change involved the grant to
q Company, of nearly million of acres of
land to which, without the fraud, it could
have had no title.
Mr.. COOPER affirms that the majority and
minority Of the House Commute of investiga-
ton both reported that no fraud had been
committed on the part Of those who had taken
part in the transaction, and that therefore the
assertion of fraud so literally made by the
Senator from Virginia, (Mr. MAsoS,) had no
foundation in the facts Of the case. This is
true, they did so report, calling the change in
the phraseology of the Act, however, serious
improperly; but with all Difference to the gen.
tlemen who composed the Committee, there
are persons, probably as capable Of Judging of
men and conduct from testimony and circum-
stances, as they are, and they have come to an
entirely different conclusion; and the write:
thinks that if MIR. Mason had been as thorough
" conversaut with all the facts of the case as
he could have been, he would not have been SO
ready to withdraw the charge of fraud which
had been imputed to him. He did not know
that the President of the Company, Mr.. Rob-
ERr w. LowBER, in his affidavit, dated De-
cember IL, 1854, and published in this city,
acknowledges the fraud, and states that it was
for that reason, Mr.. BILLINGS doubtless the
scape-goaD was requested to 90 out of the
Company.
Mr.. COOPER goes on: "The Hon. Senator
(Mr. Mason tells you that the proposition Ito
repeal the charter) is to vindicate the purity
of legislation. Is there anything impure al
legged in relation to the Legislature of Mime
sofa, or any thing imoure even in relation to
the legislation of Congress? Congress intend
ed to grant the land to Minnesota The land
was granted"
Yes, Mr.. COOPER, she intended to grant the
land to Minnesota, but not for the benefit of
this company. The Act, by forgery, was
made to defeat the intention Of Congress, and
as it passed, it enured to the benefit of the
very Company, which it was the intention of
Congress- to exclude from its provisions. Does