Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1841-1853, 1846-02-12
Austin w. Morris and the Canal Lands.

canal lands, which has lately created much excite
ment at Peru, and at other points the Upper Wa
bash. We have not time for much comment, but
there few points in this communication, to
which cannot refrain calling the readers atten-
ton.
In the first place it looks to US rather contradc-
tory on Its face Speaking of the purchased canal
lanGs east of TipPecanoe river, he says they are
principally held by persons who have not for many
years paid any portion of the principal or interest
their lands and that many of those persons possess
ed of ample means Of making payment have frequent
ly declared that so long they could hold 'whe
dog" which was bearing six per cent interest, they
lrculd not pay up" &c. Now all this looks like
justification of the new law remedy to force
them to pay up" or rather to deprive them of their
farms for not paying up" But changing this
view of the matter, he directly afterwards takes the
ground that the complained Of (and which he adj
mts he rrOte himself made change in the old
law, or rather made it still more Favorable to the
purchasers that it not a remedy but a relief
measure-that it extended the time at which for
fixture should take place from to tco years And
the reason given by Mr.. Morris for extending this
indulgence to those persons, who he says, have not
for many years paid any portion on their lands, al
though possessed of ample means of making payment,
is that he purchaser of canal lands himself!
Now this relief view of the matter looks very WELL
but the singular fact of the whole transaction is
that Mr. Morris started to the Wabash as soon after
the act approved he could get certified copy
of it! And why! Why, says he, to protect the
lands in which he had interest from sale Now
the not to be In force until certified copy of
it should be fled in the canal land office, and yet he
takes copy of it there himself, to pat 1T an force by
filing it! He could protect his own lands without
filing the act. Not only so, but when he gets there
satisfied with protecting his lands from SALE
he admits that he repaired to the land Office In
vest money in the purchase of several tracts of
land which Lad been entered by DIR. Candy and by
him transferred to the General Government !" Here
the relief view vanishes, and the ocketing COM
mences He takes credit to himself that those tracts
were not In the possession of settlers But this is
question of right and wrong, and if it wrong to
enter settlers farm, it was wrong 10 enter one be-
longing to tie General Government. There might
be more hardship in one case than in the Other but
that does change the principle of right and
wrong.
Gov Bigger was the author of the old law. He
paid $4,000 Whereabouts in addition his sal
ary as Governor, as a revisor to make the Big Code
Morris takes credit that his law was not as bad as that
that it extended the year in the old law tco
years. But the canal commissioner felt compelled to
construe the old law not to apply 10 any of
the canal lands sold before the old law was made
This construction had prevented the old law from do
ing injury. But to draw the teeth from the old law,
Mr. Harris, the Auditor of State before Mr. Morriss
bill was introduced, prepared another bill, which was
really bill for the relief of canal land purchasers
II afterwards amended, we believe, the instance
of Mr.. Taber of Cass, to prevent any canal
lands from being entered for non-payment of either
principal interest," only requiring them in that case
to be offered at public sale in the month of January
following, after four weeks public notice, giving the
purchaser the right of redemption until the very day
of sale Now this relief bill was introduced as we
have already said, before Mr. Morris's bill was
introduced. entirely changed the severity of the
old law. Itrepealed it in effect. Now if Mr. Morris
only anxious for relief for himself and other ca
nal land purchasers, why did he introduce his bill at
ALL when Mr.. Harriss BILL affording far better relief,
had been already introduced! Mr.. Harris's bill as
amended by Mr.. Taber, had actually passed before
DIR. Morris's bill. And yet after Mr.. Taber's bill
had passed. Mr.. Morriss bill reported back from
the judiciary committee, and passed both Houses all
in day, and that the very last day fixed for adj
journment. Why! Because Mr. Morris's bill ex-
pressly repeats all laws contravening its provisions,
which of would sweep away Tabers relief bill
and revive the old law. Taber's law no longer left
the question at the mercy of the construction of the
canal officers The object of Morrss bill was to de-
slroy Tabers and to restore the old law citout the
benefit CT construction. 1t to warm the viper In
to life.
But what we most object to is MIR. Morriss attempt
to make Gov. Whitcomb responsible in some degree
for the BILL He does not and could not pretend that
the Governor knew any thing of the bill until it was
brought to him with many others for signature. The
Governor was confined to his bed at the time with q
dangerous attack of sickness He had to be bolsered
I'D to sign bills. This bill, on its face was a reliel
bill 1t held out every appearance, not of fraud, but
of indulgence the purchasers. 1t extended the time
of forfeit from to two years. Under that impress
sion and in that sick condition, the bill was signed
Mr.. Morris says-does any suppose that he Gov
W. would sign bill the provisions of which he did
not fully understands Well, the understanding oil
it from ats face, looked all very fair and was well
calculated to impose upon in full vigor of mine
and body, and much more on a sick man. Blu
no knows better than Mr.. Norris or he has beer
an old clerk in the Legslature,) that the Governor
evenin perfect health, has but short time examine
bills. OF the 800 400 bills passed every session
more than two-thirds Of them come before the Gov
ernor for his signature the last day of the session