The Ottawa free trader. [volume] (Ottawa, Ill.) 1843-1916, 1846-03-13

thai arUcle. anu mncn was lelt untOurheu
tina, deserved notice. Regarding this
as a subj rct Of the utmost importance to a
large body of our farmers, and the article
in the Constituencies, rs a sem-oiIicial
defence of lhe course ni the trustees in
this matter. we have opened our columns
TO the suhjoined communication, which
answers The article in question at length.
and disslpates It's sophlsIries like chaif
before the wind.
sumo Of the canal lands have been sold prrvi-
Gus t. the act of 1913 others are occupied nv
persons 20 whom written permits were grated nv
the state agents. under the act OF 1887 or by those
who assert I" pre.emption claim, by virtue OF
the act OF 1913. which provides that, whenever
Improvements have been made on canal lands
previous to December ], 1912, the owner Of the
improvements may purchase the land, when OF.
iered ihr sale, at an appraisement made without
reference to the improvcurn,-Dnd the remain
der came 10 the trustees free from any iuculn.
brance.
As the frs, it is not con,endcd tina, the ,rus-
tees have the power to lease: as to the last
class It seems clear that they are clothed with
such power; and i, only remains Ia consider
what is the position Of the trustees. in relation 10
the lands occupied under the written permits, or
by pre-emp,ion claimants.
And first. as TO the lands occupied under the
permits. These may again he divided into two
clissrs--thosc which have been advertised for
sale since the permits were granted, aud those
which have not. As to the former there can he
no controversy, as whaiever rights were acquir.
ed under these permits expired by The terms Of
the permits themselves (see acts Of 1891 as soon
as the lands were advertized.
The question then is, can the trustees compel
the payment Of REM from persons whn under
written permits, occupy lands ,ha, have MT been
advertised for sale since the permits were gram
ted
The author Of The article in the Constitution.
ais. from which the above is taken, having thus
stated his postum, proceeds to argue that the
trustees hare the right to compel the paymen, Of
rent on lands that have not been advertised for
sale since the permits were granted. but before
proceeding 10 answer this portion Of his arsu.
men, we mus. be permitted to draw IN question
bis statement in reference 10 the lands which hare
been offered Tor sale since the permits were gran.
ed-lhat "ahout these there is no controversy.
1t Is conceived that there is very serious ICON.
roversy' as TO the RICH, of the trustees to demand
rem, from even these lands. and thnt they are
on afoo'ing very little If at all dilTercn, from those
that have not been offered for sale.
In providing law under which the occupants
and culllvators Of these lands may be protected
in the enJoymen, Of The fruits of their labor, the
Legislature has carefully secured the right and
interest Of the state. Ii is a truth manifest 10
every observer ,ha, these lands when improved,
fenced, and cultivated are Of far more value Than
when in a state uf nature. By granting per-
mission to individuals to occupy and improve the
lands under the conditions Of the s,a,n,e, it was
correctly conceived, that not only the lands
which would be improved, but oil tbs, which lsy
in its vicinity would DO greatly enhanced in val.
ne. by retaining these lands from sale il cannot
be supposed that it has been the policy Of the
legislature to rc;and the settlement Of that par,
Of the state ia which they are situated, bu,
II was to bring them into market at times and
under circumstances when tho most would be
realized from them for The purpose for which
they were donated. Accordingly laws have
been passed not OILY authorizing the occupation
and improvement Of these lands by individuals,
but securing them in their possession in the
strongest manner by extending to them the righ,
to bring cjectment aud institute proceedings for
iorcible entry and Jetainer against any person
who may enter upon such lands. Was it the
design Of the state when these laws we're passed,
after a large amount Of land would be i'm
proved, to advertise them for sale q, time when
i. should he known they could no, be sold, for
the purpose Of dcpriving the occupants Of their
improvements; or was il the design, after
such Improvements should be made, to advertise,
and, If no other person should wish to purchase,
then to require the occupants to purchase or for
lei, all their improvements to the state Such, il
is apprehended, is not the intention or meaning
Of the statutes. II, however, such construction
is correct, hundreds OF individuals, who have
made valuable improvements, must abandon their
possessions. Then, instead Of seeing the district,
in which these lands are situated, cultivated and
lourshing, sustaining an enterprizing and in.
dus'rous class Of settlers, we would see a coun-
Try dcshla,c and fnrsakcn, houses filling into ru-
IN, fences going 10 decay, and the lands running
to waste. II the lands, occupied under permits,
could not he sold a, the time they were frs, aj-
vcriiscd, the law does not contemplate tina, they
should he abandoned The only object the le.
g'lature had in view, in requiring tho occupants
10 surrender their possessions together with all
improvements when they should be advertised
Tor sale, was to secure to the purchaser the pos.
session as we'll us the title Of the land. II the
lands were not sold OF the time they were alver.
tsed. the settlers, who made improvements under
permits previous to December |, 1912, still re-.
main the owners Of them; and under tho law Of
1913 they have the right to purchase the land a,
an oppraisemen, to be made wi,hou, reference to
said improvements Of which they are recognized
US being the owners. But, il those settlers who
had insds improvements on lands under permits,
previous to advertisement, for sale, had technical.
ly fo'is''ed their rights by not purchasing. the