The proposition to grant a million acres and more to so remote and thinly settled a territory at once aroused inquiry and opposition. The policy of granting public lands for building railroads was still novel; there were but three precedents, that of the Illinois Central grant of 1850 being the oldest. The measure, however, had its friends, and the opponents were driven to the device of killing the bill by amendments. And they succeeded. Presently came a revulsion. Members from the South and West regretted that the railroad land grant policy had received so rude a backset. There was no little sympathy for Minnesota, struggling for an open road and a market. Another effort was resolved upon. Mr. Sibley, then in Washington, drew a new bill identical in the main with that which had been put to sleep, but so changed as to vest the grant in the territory and leave its disposition to the next or a later legislature. This bill was passed and approved on June 29. The incorporators named in the Minnesota act creating the Minnesota and Northwestern Railroad Company met in New York on July 1, on one day’s notice, and “organized” by the election of a board of directors. The board immediately elected the necessary officers and took the proper resolutions for beginning their enterprise. On the 24th of July it was charged on the floor of the House of Representatives at Washington that the “Minnesota bill” had been mutilated after its passage by the House, so that the Senate had really passed a differing bill. The effect of the change (simply the word “and” written over an erasure of the word “or”) had the effect to vest the lands granted in the Minnesota corporation; just what Congress had intended not to do. An abortive investigation followed, and the mutilated bill was repealed by a section added to a private bill to increase a certain pension, pending in the Senate, and awaiting third reading. This action was of course disappointing to the railroad company and those friendly to it. Delegate Rice was of opinion that the alteration of “or” to “and” was purely verbal and immaterial, and eminent attorneys advised the company that a grant having been made for sufficient considerations, it had become an irrevocable contract. The pretended repeal, therefore, was void. To test this question a case entitled The United States vs. The Minnesota and Northwestern Railroad Company was brought before the district court of Goodhue County, asking the award of damages for certain oak trees felled on land belonging to the government. The defense contended that no damages were done, because it had cut the trees on land granted by Congress by the act of June 24, 1854. The issue was, of course, the constitutionality of the repealing act. The court held the act void, and the Supreme Court of the territory sustained that judgment before the end of the year. This was very encouraging to the company, but their joy was presently changed to sorrow.