The weekly Minnesotian. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1852-1858, 1855-02-17
Rmw
NUMBER %.


l. should be sent to Congress for their approval
J. or rdsapproval, and that in the event of the Dis
J. approval OF fCongress Of any act it should Ic-
come null and void. Hence, all persons taki,
: tlties under such territorial acts before tn, v
nave been submitted to Congress for the Z
D approval or disapproval. takes them subject .
: tnat FISK. IL IL declared by public law, with
e which every man is necessarily assumed To le
conversant that such territorial acts will lie of
no validity If, when presented to Congress.
} they should meet with its disapprOval There
fore. any man. no matter whether he was a
party or privy to any of these extraord nary
transactions, when he took venture under a
territorial act which had never been presented
to Congress. necessarily took it ut the risk and
, subject to the right, of disapproval upon tho
part of Congress
Now, sir, at this stage of the session and es.
pecially as my attention has been called TO tho
urgency of time by the gentleman from Illi.
nois. (Mr. Richardson it strikes ME that it
will be better to call the previous quest on.nn
less there is some strong reason upon the part
ofsome one why it should not be done. / peo.
pose. therefore, unless the gentleman from Ill.
inols objects, to put the resolution upon its
passage and to call the previous question.
MIR. RICHARDSON. have no objection to tho
course the gentleman proposes to pursue.
know Of no reason why the resolution should
not be passed at once. My suggestion was for
| the purpose or ecOnOmlZlng time.
Mr.. HUGHES. l understand my colleague III
his remarks to implicate the conduct of the dis.
trct attorney for the Territory of Minnesota.
Now. sir. l rise simply for the purpose of ask
| ing the HOusc-that gentleman being from tho
State of New York. which have the honor in
part to represent-nOt to come to any hasty
conclusion unriendly to that officer, or in ref.
ereDce to Tie conduct of that officer, until they
have had an opportunity of knowing definitely
| in, alctn tl,nf ;ol,
speaks.
Mr.. CUTTING. can furnish the gentlem e.
with definite Information i'm relation to the
matter OF which he speaks. Upon the investi.
cation of those who have the right to investi.
gate and the power to act and in answer to u
resolution of this House. we have here the re.
port Of the Attorney General, which has been
printed and distributed amongst the members
of the House. which sets forth the proceedings
of the district attorney. They were, as it ap.
pears. so fragrant in their character. that this
who had the power and the duty tn ahjud.cate
in reference to it, felt it to be their duty forth
with to dismiss the district attorney from OF.
fee. Now. apprehend it would be unbecom.
ing in this House to take any action to call in
question what has been done by these authori.
ties. or to 90 behind the proceedings of those
whose duty it was to make this investigation.
Mr. HUGHEs. l have only to say in reply,
that have heard of the rumor of which hD
speaks, and have heard that it is only ri.
NOR. l understand that the matter is still
held in abeyance and that the district attor-
ney of Minnesota has not been removed. l de.
sire further to say that l am personally ac-
quainted with Mr.. Warren, and that I know
him to be an honorable high-minded gentle.
man. and believe he would do nothing. as
district attorney. Incompatible with the pub
lie interest, or unbecoming his official posit oil.
But all ask is that the House will not judge
hastily in relation to this person without al
fOrding him all opportunity of being heard.
Now, sir. one word more. My colleague has
spoken ofthe argument made by the district
attorney in the case which has been presented.
desire to ask him if he has read the able ar
gument made by the district attorney on tha
occasion. in defense of the United States?
Mr.. CUTTING. Ifmy colleague undertakes to
deny the charges made against the district at
torney so be it.
Mr.. HUGHES. Not at all.
Mr.. CUTTING. But the district attorneys
guilt or innocence does not weigh feather in
determining the matter before the House. Tho
Territorial Legislature of Minnesota have pas
Sed acts which if allowed to stand. will violate,
the will Of Congress-, and ask the House
whether they will delay their action now. be-
cause the gentleman from New York desires t,'
protect the district attorney? No, Mr.. Spr &.
er. these are collateral issues. and should ta
tried at the proper time and place, but n
here.
MIR. LANE, of Oregon. (Mr. Cutting yielding
the foor.) Mr.. Speaker, it will be we'll recol.
lected by every gentleman here that this bill
occupied the time set apart for the cOnsiderc-
tion of territorial busines, last session. and de.
feated the action of the House upon many im-
portant measures. am sat,ficd that the :, !
was conceived in sin. and brnueh fort h in in.
iquity" [Laughter.] Enough has ''en said
on the SUBJECT. and the House is pre- pared to
pass the joint resolution. !. therefore. ask tho
gentleman from New York. if he is Il TREND TO
the Territories, to insist upon the previous
question. hope the law will be repealed.
Mr.. CUTTING. Under that request. which I
perceve is the unanimous desire of the House.
insist upon the demand for the previous qucs
ton.
MIR. HUoHEs Will the gentleman waive. t
for one moment?
loud cries of "Now "No:"1
MIR. HuGHEs have been misunderstood.
Mr.. Cutting. If the gentleman will look at
page forty of the official correspondence ha
will find that the Attorney General has return.
ed to this House the fact. that that district at =
torney has been removed from Office.
Mr.. HUGHEs. wish to say single word.
Mr.. CUTTIMG. No. sir the House desires
that I should press the demand for the previous
question. and must insist on it.
Mr.. IlrGnEs. Well, hope the House will
vote it down.
The previous question received second and
the main question was ordered to be put.
The joint resolution xas then ordered to lie
engrossed and read third time. and being en-
crossed, it was accordingly read the third
time.
II MrCurrrHc. now demand the previor
question on the passage Of the resolution.
The previous question was secondhand the
main question was ordered to be put.
. Mr.. STUART, of Ohio. I ask for the yeas and
r nays on the passage of the resolution.
t The yeas and nays were not ordered.
The Joint resolution was then passed.
p MIR. CUTTING moved to reconsider the vote
I nv which it was passed, and also moved to l.. Y
: the motion to reconsider upon the table.
The latter motion was agreed to.
p Mr.. CUTTING. l have further report to
$ make from the committee on the Judiciary.
. Mr.. HUGHEs. Will my colleague allow NO
o the floor for moment?
Mr.. CUTTING. Yes, sir, will yield to my
: colleague tor a moment.
: Mr.. HUGHES. find that have been misl ..
D derstood. was not opposed to the pass" o
< of the bill introduced by my colleague AT all.
t But inasmuch as my colleague rather animal.
8 verted on tie conduct Of MIR. Warren. asked
d the members of the House not to prejudice the
!. case until Mr.. Warren should have an oppor'
If tunity of being heard. -,
Q Mr.. CUTTING. / so understood. did NOE
Y understand that my colleague was opposed 10
e the joint resolution.
,f Mr. RICHARDSON. 1rise to question OF or.
]. lder. object to the discussion going on, and