The weekly Minnesotian. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1852-1858, 1855-03-31
! HI MN NESOT IA n
WEDNESDAY MORNING, MARCH 20. 1855
what II q ssMemorlalS %

What 10 ssMemerialSs
Old Noah Webster says, in his third clause
defining the word, that memorial is "A wris-
ten representation Of facts made to . legisis-
tive or other body as the ground ola pention'
or the representation offacts accompanied WIFI
petition"
The tive Houses Of the Legislative Assembly
NJ Minnesota embodied their opinions In -
written representation OF facts, accompanied
with . pstitisn," and seat the documents on to
the Congress Of the United States, which is
generally conceded to be Legislative body"
These memorials were referred to the commit
tee On Territories in the Senate that commit
tee wss composed Of four distinguished law
yers and enc gentleman Of fifteen or twenty
years. legislative experience; perhaps they
know the meaning of the term memorial" as
we'll As any Eve men in Congress; SO they ap-
piled the Websterian definition in their report
in order to designate the action of the two
branches Of the Minnesota Legislature.
Per contra.-Jack Morgan and Newson, two
distinguished (f) political bedfellows of St
Paul, decide in the Times Of yesterday, that
the members of the ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Independent representatives of the people OF
Minnesota-had no right to memorialize Con-
gress upon any subject unless they asked and
obtained the permission of Gov. German to that
endi
Thus then the matter stands: Webster, the
Minnesota Legislature and the Senate commit
tee on one side, and NewsOn and Morgan on
the other. Who will decide the controversy
We move to leave it to the spirit rappers.
After making grand flourish OF trumpets
over his decision" of yesterday in regard to
this matter, Newson winds up with a dash at
the Minnesotian, which effort he yesterday was
blowing about town as being "unanswerable."
We will make an extract,and try to answer:
THE editor of this sheet 1.-THE Minnesotian]
has repeatedly charged us with writing articles
we never penned. We have called for these
articles, but have called in vain. We have as
ked for proof. but no proofha been forth-com-
ing. And thus day after day, the same char
ges are reiterated, and new falsehoods are
patched out to place u.s. if possible, in false
position before the public"
Now, Mr.. Beauty and Purity we have got you!
You refer to our assertion that you had repeat
edly assured your readers during the past two
months that "C0ngress had annulled the char
ter of the NJ. and N. ". R. R. Company" and
in the above extract you have the bald impu-
dence to say you never penned any such state
ment We shall see:
A fraud was ommitted-Congress repealed
the bill in consequence of that Predetermined
the charter for the same reas0n.--I'lnes Edi-
torial, Feb 10, 1855.
And again, two days afterwards:
Taking the gentlemen on their own grounds,
we should like to know, how it is that if Con-
gress had no right to repeal the bill giving the
lands to Minnesota ,chile the charter acas in e.
1stence. what right have the members to repeal
the bill after the charter is annulled? Does
the mere annulment of the charter give Con-
greSS the power to take away the lands grant
ed to Minnesota?-Iimes Editorial, Feb. 81,
1855.
There, sir, you have portion Of the proof
from your own files of veryrecentldates. If that
don't satisfy you, we have plenty more left of
the same sort. In the last extract you speak
ofthe charter as law which had been in ex-
istence, but ,cas not at the time You wrote
the 2lst of last month. In the first extract,
you state positively that "Congress" "annul-
cd the charter" for the same reason it repealed
the grant. Then, after the action of the Sem
ate was known here, you stated you never had
the least hope that the Senate would cooper
ate with the House. We won't take the trou-
BILE to quote this latter assertion Of yours, for
1t was made only week since, and cannot be
forgotten.
o, most consummately truthful, honest, edi-
tori