Burlington hawk-eye. [volume] (Burlington, Iowa) 1845-185?, 1850-06-20

| ,ce have but Just commenced its discussion. We
have hitherto been striving to induce them to pub
ish some facts in relation to the matter, and al
though we have not wholly succeeded, we are in
clned to the opinion that they have now given their
| endorsement to all that is necessary to enable US
exhibit their perfdy deceit, and alsehood, in their
| true colors. We speak nou of certain clique Of
locoleaders, who have recently attempted to epull
the wool over the eyes" Of the people of Iowa, by
an appeal to their pockets, and their avarce. This
was assuredly in very bad taste, but locofoco lead
have acquired no great celebrity for the deeacy
| Of their appeals to the popular voice.
Now, what are the tacfs upon which the people
OF Iowa are to decide, What questions are involv-
ed in this discussion. The first question to be de-
cided is, how much land was originally granted for
the purpose Of improving the Des Moines rlver9
We placed the portion Of the act which defines its
extent in our columns two weeks since. Yet no
loco paper in the state has ventured to give to its
readers. And this is one circumstance which 10
| to be placed in the account against them. The
terms Of the grant loose and vague; yet they
stand, it is impossble for any to construe them
30 as to extend the grant the scho'e length Of the
river. In the first place the oct does not say so-
The only fermini mentioned are the aNfoSsh Of the
river" and the "Roecoon Fork'' In the next place,
the Territory at that time covered the whole Of the
river, Il does not. As the locos noc interpret
the grant, they must 90 into Minnesota to obtain all
they claim, they certainly ought to do, il their
Interpretation be correct. 1t needs no argument to
show that Congress could not have intended to give
to this state the lands which lie in another state or
| territory.
hA art An>. n0H .sl- md 49, n.
state its limits, how is it to be construed2 II it said
from the mouth to the source, there could be NO
question about the matter, and il would have been
SO easy to say it, that its omission Of ITSELF should
| convince man ofjudgment that such was not the
intention of Congress. But let us see how il must
be construed. We may apply either OF two
principles Of construction to it. The first, legal
one. It is well settled principle Of law that
grant from private person IL to be construed most
strongly against the granior. But in the case Of
grant from government, in all cases, is to be taken
most strongly against the granee. There il strict
construction here, because its officers will thereby
be prevented from defrauding the public by any
collision with the grantee. Apply them to the case
in hand, and in any court in the whole country, the
grant would be permitted to extend further than
to the "Racoon Forks That is one Of the termini
mentioned, and a. no good reason can be offered
for making i. more extensive, there It must stop.
The second rule ofintcrpretation i. to be found
IN tie practice Of the government. Here, too, there
can be no difference of opinion. To assist in tAe
internal improvements Of many Of the new states,
the United states have in many instances granted
portion OF the Public Lands, lying along such con-
templated Improvements. but VIC believe there is
no instance upon record in which the grant has
been more extensive than the work itself. II it
has, it will be found expressed plainly in the grant,
and sufficient reason for the variation from the
usual practice will accompany it. It may be said
that the phrase, withn said Territory make the
grant co-extensive with the whole length of the
river within the state. But this phrase was mere
~ Tor the purpose OF preventing claim to land
lying in Missouri, which as is well known, borders
upon the river from its mouth for some distance.
Thus We see that in point Of law as well as prac-
tce. the RacCoou Fork is the extent Of the grant.
But il our readers will turn to the grant ITSELF and
place . after the words .sDes Mcines rirrr,'
they will perhaps be surprised to find that this will
be the plain and ABSOLUTE meaning OF the grant
Whether that coma was ever there or not, perhaps
others will be able to say with much more certain
however.
But, further. The loco press has censured Mr..
Ewing for his Interpretation. We do not hesitate
to say that his decision was right, even il Mr.. |
Walker had made contrary one, which he had not
the courage to do The decision he made is exact.
ly what the loco Commissioner under Mr.. Walker |
had acted upon, and upon which he actually sold |
more than 10000 acres Of the land, now claimed |
to eta N,
er seek to have the value OF these lands refunded
Have they ever said anything against that officer,
or held aim up as obnoxious to the censure Of the
good people of lowa9 Has any one taken
any steps by which the state may obtain re-
dress for the sroobery' committed by locofoco Of
hcer7 Hanything has been done we are ignorant
oft, and we presume the people =. ignorant as
we are. Here is wrong committed. The land was |
sold and the money received by the loco Officer
None has been sold by Mr. Ewing's direction. On |
the contrary, he has indicated easy method of de-
termining the matter without to the state. As
yet, the honorable Senator's who know so well the |
exact meaning OF the grant, take care to maintain
perfect silence upon the subject in their seats
They must submit to one Of two interpretations Of
their conduct Mr.. Ewing is right and they knor it,
and they are assured that their locofoco brethren
are not disposed to give any land to Iowa for
the Des MONIES improvement; or they are not quite
50 Patriosic-do not care qu,e'so much for the in
terests Of Iowa as they have pretended. In either
case they deserve to be lashed from Washington to
Iowa with scat-o-nine-tails.
In what we have said, we have not contemplated
the rropriety Of original gran, from the mouth to
the source Of the Des Moines. We have said be-
fore that we wish that river improved a. much and
as rapidly as possible. and that the grant should
as liberal as necessary for this purpose. But when
men complain OF an Interpretation OF grant which
is not only consonan. with law, practice, and the
terms Of the grant itself, should be wanting in
onrduty,as well to the officer eensurd as 10 the pub.
did we not, in our feeble way,defend him from
such insidious assaults. The iocos have published
the correspondence with Mr.. Ewing, and the letter
OF Mr. Walker, now let them publish the grant, it,
self, ifthey dare. They have hitherto stuiiously
kept it from public sight, and this shows exactly
how honest and patriotic they are in party matters
AvERr's FRuir.-Whilc writing this notice
we are eating an apple from Avery's orchard. 1t
is winesap, in most excellent state of rreser-
vstion, and of capital favor. II was exhibited.
with six other varieties, at the Hor,ic ultur,,
meeting on Thursday last.
From the same source we have also received a