The daily Minnesota pioneer. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1854-1855, 1855-02-08

preme. Court. Z -
Beyond the general regulation Is to all suits,
there is the special one applicable to trespas-
ses upon the property Of the United States,
which provides tbat the district afaorney, on
becoming possessed of any information leading
him to believe that such trespass has been COM
mitted, $ will Immediately report the same to.
the Solicitor n \ n or If, in his opinion. the
remedy of the United States would be. lost or
endangered by delay, he will, in case he shall
consider it proper to DO 50, Immediately COM
mence suit, and report the same to the Sdici-
| tor"
Under these regulations there is no possible
room to doubt that, in commencing this suit
without Instructions, the district attorney vio-
lated his duty ). because no remedy of the e nj
ted States could be ''lost or endangered by de-
lay" in writing to the Solicitor. In SO far as
concerns the trespass, the remedy could have
waited not days or weeks only for consulting
the Solicitor, but months, without particular
prejudice to the United States. -.
AS to the rest, no official information of the
trespass complained of in the present suit, or Of
the tendency of the suit ITSELF or of the judg
ment below and appeal nor any transcript of
the record or other appeal papers, having to
this day been received BY the Solicitor, Tor by
mcnt) it remains only to inquire whether,
| though not received, they have been actually
transmitted by the district attorney.
| In a newspaper published in the Territory of
Minnesota, called the st. Paul Democrat, re-
ceived by the Secretary of the Interior, and by
him communicated to me on the 9th ultimo,
is printed communication to the public, I'M
der date of December 4, 1854, signed "John
B. Brisbin,' copy of which is annexed.
In this document, which is apparently au-
thentic, Mr. Brisbin speaks of the present suit,
| while pending in the Territory, as in his
charge, and makes the following statement
"The action against the Minnesota and North
western Railroad Company at issue on the Odd
day Of October, 1854. On the 9th Of October,
1854, Ubediemtly To instructions, communicated to
| accompanied with Il statement Of the objects of the
suit, and the precise character of the issues raised
Nearly two msnihs have since inte, vened, and the
drpa ,Ient has in mwise sign,fed it's dsapprova Of
the course pursued by the dist let attorney"
1t does not appear from this statement what
precise legal relation Mr.. Brisbin had to this
suit but if, as it would seem, he acted for the
district attorney, thrn what he says is impor-
tant because he does not pretend that the dis.
trict attorney had any authority to sue, nor
that notice of the suit was given Immediate
ly" upon its being commenced, but only after
issue joined. The declaration is material in
another point, because it admits knowledge of
the standing instru, ton to attorneys. lobe
diently to Instructions" he says, he commu-
nicated to the department notice of the pend
ency of the action" It does not appear from
this hoao he communicated" nor to what
Z" department but as he processes to have done
this " obediently to Instructions" of course, by
department he must mean the Solicitor
IT, however, it was addressed enormously to
some other officer of the COVER ,ment, that is
quite immaterial, so far as regards the ques-
ton of the district attorneys duty for, after
waiting reasonable time for Instructions, he
should have assumed the is-carriage of the
notice, and repeated it. Beyond all which is
the graver consideration, that to have commen-
ced the action without authority-to have Civ
en- notice of its tendency to the government
only when it was too late for the Solicitor of
to instruct advise, Or direct as to the pleadings
and trial-to have given no notice of either of
the subsequent judgments against>t the United
States-and them finally, not to send the ap-
peal-papers to the Solicitor, would constitute a
series of acts in which the fact of the one un-
seasonable notice would augment the weight
of inference against the district attorney.
In the same journal, of the 18th of Decem-
Der, is printed public statement purporting
to be signed by the district attorney himself,
mr. John E. Warrcn,) in which, while argu-
ing in justification of the mOtires Of his con
duct, he speaks throughout Of the suit as il sti-
tuted and carried on by himself, and assumes
responsibility for the acts of Mr.. Brisbin in the
premises, without anywhere pretending author
ity or Instructions from the government. To !
this effect is the transcript of the record, which
shows that notice to the company of action
brought in the name of the United States is |
torney." A copy Of Mr.. Warren's communi-
cation is annexed.
1t is observable, moreover, that Mr.. War
several days after the case, having passed
been appealed to the Supreme Court-give5
not the least intimation o. any report made by
him to the government, which is left to learn
the very tendency of the suit at the last hour
from the adverse party, or the public journals |
of Minnesota.
So that the case is plainly this The district
attorney has brought an action of trespass, IN
the name of the United States, not for the
purpose of redressing trespass on the public
domain, but Of trying the title of the United
States to the tract OF land originally ceded to
the Territory of Minnesota to aid in the con-
struction of a railroad.
The interest of the United States, of the |
Territory Of Minnesota, or of settlers on the
public lands, might require judicial investiga-
tiOn OF this matter; and in one form or anoth-
er it would be not unlikely to find its way,
sooner or later to the SuDrpme COurt Rut |
the question Of the propriety of All action in
the name of the United States for such pur-
poses, as also that Of the peadings and issues
In the casp waa one fnr tho Evoo,,ti,,, o. 4Lo