Saint Paul weekly Minnesotian. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1858-1859, 1859-09-10

circumstances. the Company auhicb is made the
defendant in this suit, organized In NeD York
City IN an illegal manner-is charter requiring
a notice of such intention to be giusn THIRTY
days prior thereto, and ONE days notice only
hauing been giuen. Som after this illegal Or
ganization, the fraud which had been perpe-
trated in the Senate upon The Minnesota Land
Bill was discovered, and Immediately on its
discovery the act itself was repealed.
Notwithstanding this action Of Congress
in repeating upon the National Statute Book
a law which was voidable through the fraud
and forgery perpttrated upon it during its
passage, and the fact of this very law, thus
tainted, is the only one by which any grant
of lands is pretended to be made to the Ter
ritory of Minnesota for Railroad purposes
and in spite of the further fact that the organ
ization of the Company itselfis demonstrably
illegal, yet the Company, under these circum-
stances, has the graceless assurance to claim
the lands, purported to be granted by such
act of Congress- as its property. We regret
the necessity Of stating the conviction, which
a careful examination of the pleadings above
copied, forces upon US, that the management
OF the cause thus far on the part Of the Uni.
ted States, evinces degree of imbecility or
corruption, equalled only by the amazing i'm
pudence of the Company ITSELF
"That we may demonstrate to the public
that we are doing no injustice either to the
Company, or to the sworn Guardians of the
interests OF the Government and the people,
we proceed to examine these pleadings in de-
tail. and to state their effect upon the inter-
ests involved. A
"The action instituted by the United States
District Attorney through bis assists mt, John
b. Brlsbin, Esq, is one of trespass. The com
carrying away Of five hundred oak trees by
the defendants, on the 18th Of October, 1854
from the close Of the plaintiff, on section 3,
III township liz, in the county of Goodhue.
"The answer of the Minnesota and North
western Railroad Company sets forth, in JUS
tification, the act of the Territorial Legisla-
ture of the 4th Of March, 1854, by which the
defendants were incorporated, and the act of
Congress approved the 9th of June, 1884,
by which certain lands were donated and
granted to the Territory to aid in the con-
struction of a railroad. The answer then
proceeds to state at great length the steps
taken and proceedings had, by which the de-
PENDANTS organized as Company, under the
act of incorporation passed by the Territorial
Legislature, and AYERS that the Company has
in all things complied with the requirements
OF its charter, specifying dates, &c.--that it
had located the road upon and across the
lands described in the cOmplaint-and that
the acts complained Of we're committed by the
agent, employees, and servants of the Com
pany, in the necessary construction Of the
road across the premises, and within aud up
on the track of SAID road, as they had a law
full right to do. In addition, the answer pro
fesses to state with particularly, other acts
and proceedings of the COmpany-its several
meetings in the city of New York-the Civ
ing notice of acceptance of their chartcr-the
opening of books for subscriptions of stocks,
both in New York and st. Paul-previ us
notice given by publication in the papers
the subscription OF upwards of two millions of
the stock-the payment of ten per cent. by
subscribers on the amount of their subscrip-
tions-that the Company was completely or
ganized, and had acquired vested rights in the
lands before Congress repealed the grant.
"All of these things are set forth in the an
swer of the Company, and alleged tt. be mat
ters of fact. They are issuable facts upon
which the United States, as plaintiff, might
take issue by replication, and throw upon the
defendants the proof Of their allegations. But
this has not been done.
The reply on the part of the government
does not put in issue a single point set up in
answer but simply states that the act OF
Congress, approved the 29th of June, 1854
was repealed by the second section of the act
of Congress of the 4th of August, 1854.
Consequently, every averment in the an
swer of the Company, stands admitted on the
record by the United States.
The fraudulent acts and forgery of the de-
PENDANTS, or their agents, in procuring the al.
teration of the act of Congress of the 29th
of June, while pending as bill in the Sen
ate, before its passage-and the Illegal Or
ganization of the Company afterwards facts
which induced both Houses of Congress, by
overwhelming majorties, to repeal the grant
Of land t. the Territory ARE not set out by the
District Attorney, nor stated in the reply by
way of avoidance of the act set up in the an
swer, under which the the defendants justify.
These facts, which are notorious, and sus-
ceptible ofirrefragible proof, would, either OF
them, have been sufficient to sustain the &C.
ton. e. ~ .-
All that was required to brig the case be-
fore the Court upon its merits, was simple
denial of the matters stated in the answer.
Upon that denial, an issue of fact would
have been made and the validity of the act
of Congress making the railroad grant, and
the legality of the organization of the Com
pany, would both have been properly tested
and determined.
Instead Of this, no issue of fact whatever is
made by the pleadings, and even the issue OF
law upon which the case as it now stands
must be decided, lis one which appears to
have been made up, ON boths des, for tile con.
venience and aduantage of the Company and in
which the interest of the general government
and of the people of Minnesota, are utterly
ignored and disregarded
What real or supposed necessity existed al
this time, for commencing this action, or in.
stituting any proceedings against the "Min.
nesota and Northwestern Railroad Compa-
n.y." unless it was to suit its convenience, and
to result to its advantage, in making up an is
sue which would insure it a favorable deci
sion? Have the depredations committed by
the Company been of character to awaker
public attention2 Have the people, or hal
any high functionary of the government, com
planned of their trespasses? On the contra.
ry, is there man in Minnesota who believes
that any trespass was ever committed by thu
Company, or any of its agents, in the manner
complained of by the United States Distric
Attorney. Cd.
We have seen no such man but very