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

Report ON the Railroad Question
? HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,. Jan.

r. House OF REPRESENTATIVES, Jan. 25.
The undersigned, minority of the Commi
tee on the Judiciary to which was referrs
that portion of the Executive Message relatr
to the act of the 4th of March last, incorpora
ing the Minnesota and North Western Railroa
Company. the act of Congress of the 29th
june 1854. granting certain lands to this Te
ritory, and the alteration of the text thereo
pending its passage in the House of Represen
atives, the act of Congress of the 4th of Augu.
last, repeating the granting act, and also tt
desire of the people in reference to the said az
of incorporation, expressed in the followin
words, that is to say:
| 1t is therefore evidently the will of the pet
pie that it should be so disapproved by Cor
gress at its present session. E-l 3=sI
Respectfully q 2fr. .5a-,i ~ -sI '
| REPORT I'D zfst
| With the matter of the alteration of the &C
Of Congress, granting lands for the purposes Q
the road, by one of its own sworn officers,
would seem, that we have nothing whatever
do. That body has ample power to protec
its own dignity and vindicate its owl
honor. 1t is privilege also exclusively it
own, and, it is believed, that we are not calle,
upon to sit in judgment or pass sentence upoi
any officer of that body, nor upon his acts.
The House of Representatives thought fit t,
have the subject investigated without callin!
for our assistance, and the result was that thei
committee reported that the officer was limo
cent of any intentional wrong, and that M
fraud had in fact been committed.
And, indeed, it is generally conceded now
by enlightened jurists and lawyers, that the al
teration was merely verbal, and did not change
the meaning of the act, which must be derived
from all the language used in it, taken as
whole. aud not depend upon the construction
of a single word. .--.-.
But if the alteration was material and the
officer merited strong condemnation, how much
more reprehensible would be the conduct oi
this Legislative Assembly, to whom is confded
the trust of protecting the Peoples, honor and
Of preserving the public faith inviOlate, should
it seek directly, or indirectly, to annul a So
lemn legislative contract, for the performance
of which the public faith is pledged. zr,T ....
That contract has been deliberately made and
accepted. Both the parties to it have taken
upon themselves obligations which cannot be
dissolved but by mutual consent. r-, t....i.,.
One million of dollars to the capital stock
has been subscribed upon the faith of it, and
one hundred thousand dollars of that amount
has been actually paid in. And we are inform
ed by our judicial records that the Company
actually commenced the location of their track,
thus giving evidence of good faith as we'll as
ability to comply with the contract on their
part. And shall we arrest their progress by
repudiating it on our part? What humiliat-
ing spectacle to every friend of the Territory
to witness her in such position before the
world at large, held up to ridicule and scorn,
bearing dishonored name and blasted Gre
dit in every financial circle! What madness
and folly for her now, when all the people oi
the Union are directing an admiring eye upon
her, and predicting an honorable and brilliant
career, to disappont those high expectations
and cover her name with shame! t..4 ~,
If one contract is to be violated may moi
another be? What security could be given to
any other company that they should not share
like fate? Nay where is the prudent man
who would risk money upon q mere charter
when he had witnessed the destruction of Q
large amount of property, raised upon the faith
of this one? But to say nothing of the injus
tce ofrescinding the charter. where is the pow.
or to do it?' 1t has not been reserved to the
Territory, nor is there any known law recog-
nizing the right of one party to rescnd a con-
tract without the consent or default of the
other. If this company fail to comply on their
part, it belongs to the judicial tribunals, and
not to this assembly to apply the proper RENE
dy. If an individual member Of that company
has committed a wrong at Washington or else
where, is that reason why the Territory or
Congress should commit still greater wrong,
by annulling it's charter and destroying its pro-
perty? On the other hand, if one of it's men,
bers should be falsely imprisoned under color
of our laws, would that be sufficient reason
why the company should not build the road ?
And will this Assembly do an act of the great
est injustice, because an individual has perpe-
trated fraud? -i7'7-
If so, whose property or liberty is secure
In the acts regarding the Territories OF Nebras-
ka and Kansas, no power of disapprOyal by
Congress is reserved. A good principle was
established by those acts, to wit: that the peo-
pie of the Territories possess the right of self
government, a principle for which our colonial
ancestors constantly struggled and finally
maintained. '
Many OF our greatest statesmen Of the pre-
sent day have labored strenuOusly for the re-
cognition of this right by the General Govern
ment, and now that it has been recognized,
how poorly should we appear to appreciate the
position ofindependence in which it has placed
us by asking Congress to veto our laws! What
a reproach upon our people! What an insult
to their intelligence! What an act of legisia-
tive qualification What an indication of
weakness! What evidence of pusillanimous
councils If we have enacted laws that need
correction, if we have made contracts that seem
to be too favorable to the other contract
ing parties, let us amend those laws and seek.
by an honorable understanding 20 obtain modi-
icationf of those contracts, but let us never &C
knowledge the right of Congress to annihilate
our enactments /; for. upon them depend the
safety of our persons, the security of our liber-
ties, and the stability of our property. All the
rights of property vested under former laws
and under the judgments Of our courts, based
npon those laws may, if we acknowledge the
right in this instance, be swept away by one
annihilatinp act of Congress, r-.F.. q
Nav, what will become of the hundreds and
hundreds of thousand of dollars, belonging to
the stockholders of the st. Croix Boom COmpa-
ny, the Mississippi Boom Company, the Rum
River Boom Company, the Minneapolis d st.
Anthony Bridge Company, the st. Anthony
Boom Company, the St. Paul Fire and Marine
Insurance Company, and the property held un-
der numerous Ferry charters, if this or any
other Legislature should recognize the princi-
pie that Congress has power to disapprOve of
those charters! Would it not be establishing
a most dangerous precedent .o
These charters and the one under consider
alton must stand or fall upon the same princi-
pie. No one will pretend that the charter of
this company conflicts with any law of Congress
or is repugnant to the Constitution. If it is
not. what has Congress to do with it? Does it
interfere in any way with the policy of the gen.
eral government? If moi, why should Con gress
meddle with it? Surely, the only object OF
that provision in our organic act reserving the
right to Congress to disapprove our laws, is to
give that body instead of the Courts, power to
declare such acts void, as are manifestly in
conflict with the Constitution or laws or poll.
cy of the general government. It could have
no other object. 1t will be conceded that we
cannot ourselves annul the charter. Why not!
Because, it is contract, and rights have vested
under it. 1t would be unjust. nay, dishonest
to destroy those rights And is there anv onf