The weekly Minnesotian. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1852-1858, 1855-02-03

out making just compensation to the owner =
II such were the fact, we should have much le
reason to be proud of our country and our il
stutions. True we have the right to repeal a
general laws, and it may be that Congress hs
power to disapprove them, but when we max
: solemn legislative contract, relating to
rlghtful subject of legislation, under whic
rights have vested, it is submitted that neithe
this Assembly nor Congress have the power t
annul such contract and divest those rights.
This squestion has been settled by our Courts
whose Judgments, until reversed, are binding
and which we cannot supercede .iofss :
The District Court of Goodhue County, Chic
Justice Welch presiding. decided, YnldsNl s..
FTst BY the act OF Congress- approves
June 29th. 1854, granting certain lands to tn
Territory of Minnesota, to aid said Territor
in constructing Railroad, the Territory co IN;
sfdnh upon the passage of the act acquired al
interest and property in the lands granted ,whicI
the Territory could grant and convey.
Second. BY the act OF the Legislature o
Minnesota Incorporating the Minnesota ant
North Western Railroad Company, the salt
Company acquired an interest and property il
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 O
Congress and the organization Of the Compa
n.y. ~ '' If 800 ."Io1.
Third. The second section of the act o.
Congress passed August 4th, 1854 repeating the
first mentioned act of Congress-, is repugnani
not only to the Constitution OF the United
States, but also to great and fundamental prin-
clples which have been recognized from time
lmmemorial wherever the common law pre-
walls. eiIa vs. a -
And that decision has been affirmed by the
Supreme Court of the Territory. BY this we
&c orto osptxy hat tbo
of lands is not lost that such calamity is
spared us, and that too by the action of this
very company. Shall we relinquish what we
have certainly got, for what we may possibly
get! After witnessing the defeat of the nu-
merOus and meritOri0us applications to Con-
gress for similar grants, backed by strong
combination of all the Representatives and SEN
ators from the States to be benefited by them,
and after reading the late message of the Pres
ldent Oh that subject, endorsed as it is by his
cabinet and 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 u single Delegate in Con-
gress, and he having no vote :? st 81 .-. ..
1t is now the settled policy of this admins
tratlon 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 q
mere presumption ofwhat Congress may do ?
AS we have seen, the Supreme Court has de-
cided that right to the lands already granted
is vested in this Company; and there is no ap-
peal from that decision to this Assembly nor
to Congress, and until and unless it be revers-
ed by the Supreme Court of the United States
il is the settled law. ..ra .e --..,.. =.
Fear of litigation, then, with this Company
growing out of claim to the right of way as
well as to the lands granted by Congress, would
be enough ofitself; ;deubtless, TO deter any new
company from undertaking to build the road
Such q contingency wonld be deplorable, and
would most probable result in having no road
at all. dasqlc74 = Esal ~ ........
But let Us suppose that five should memo
ralize Congress tOdisapprove the charter, and
it should do so, and this company should be
thereby discouraged and excused also. from
building the road. what then would become o.
the lands granted? oliL sft. fof.tii
Could the Territory still hold them? +.
1t is believed that if the Company lose the
lands. they are lost to the Territory ~,
As between the United States and the Terri
tory, the latter is but quasi corporation, and
took and had no such interest in the lands be-
tween the time Of the passage of the granting
act and its repeal, as precludcd their being ia
ken away by the general government. But a
grant by the Territory. under power delcgat-
ed to it by the United States, is IN tact.a grant
by the United States, and vests property in
the grantee. .lgits.g, --
It is placed upon the ground that such grant
is made for consideration, to wit, an under
taking, by the acceptance Of the charter, and
an organization under it. to build the road.
In the case Of the Territory. however, there
was, between the granting act and its repeal.
no act Of acceptance whatever, ON the part of
the Territory. 1t neither surveyed nor lOcat-
ed the road, or otherwise incurred any expen-
ses in consequence of the grant. Had it done
so. it is possible that this would form a good
consideration to uphold the grant, and would
at least, amount to an acceptance of it.
But it is said in the Executive Message that
extraordinary privileges are granted in this
charter to the company, and for that reason
the people wish to have it disapproved. Ad-
hitting even that this would be asufficient rea-
son why the contract should be annulled, let us
enquire what are those extraordinary privil-
eyes? Are there any privileges granted that
are not contained in every charter under which
railroads have been built or undertaken? His
Excellency does not point them out to us, and
on comparing this with other charters, copies
of which are accessible, it will be seen that
they are uniformly more liberal to the corpor-
ators than this is. By this charter the Compa-
ty of the United States free of charge, to trans
port the mails as often as the Postmaster Gen
eral may designate and for such compensation
as may be fixed by Congress.
1t is obliged to pay into our treasury, semi
annually, per cent. of its net earnings which
in afew years must amount to fifty or eighty
thousand dollars q year. Aud again, all its
property is subject to territorial, town and CT
ty taxes. These requirements are unusual
It is true, the Illinois Central r. r. requires a
payment of per cent. of the gross earnings OF
the road but this was to compensate the State
for about two millions of dollars, expended
upon the road which was transferred to the
Company. But the Company is exempted from
all but State taxes and these are never to ex-
ceed of one per cent. and none of its lands
are subject to taxation until sold by the Com
pany, and all its other property is exempt
theiefrom for the period of six years, from the
passage of the charter. These privileges are
not conferred upon the M. and N. w. R, r..
Co. iI .lrEs - 9s-g G, 1asg . .5
Estimating the cost of the road at ten mil
lions of dollars and the annual tax at ten mills
to the dollar. they would afford a revenue to
the Territory Of one hundred thousand dollars
annually. 'faa i1I,eq- -r...,......
The charter of this Company is almost lit
eral transcript Of the charter of the Illinois
Central Railroad Company, except that it i'm
poses conditions which are not contained in the
latter. For instance, by the sixteenth section,
the charter is to be void and all its property
forfeited, unless the company render to the
Governor an annual statement under oath, of
the amount expended in the construction ofthe
road, the purchase Of machinery therefor, and
fixtures, the amount of its receipts and expen-
ditures and unless said road shall be laid with
a rail of not less than sixty pounds per yard,
al nd ncfn oh l.