The Ottawa free trader. [volume] (Ottawa, Ill.) 1843-1916, 1851-02-22


to the bonds referred to in the message) to the
best possible advantage, at any price they may
think proper, not less than seventv-five cents on
the dollar IN par funds in New York" Thus
showing that the contractors would be satisfied
with fale al that price To confirm tins view,
The governor, upon IN application by the contrac-
tors who Informed him tlpt the canal would
hrrc to stop for the want VI funds stated To a
committee appointed 10y them to wait ON him,
that he could not dispose Of bonds at par, and
the law did not authorize n sale below par but
that if they would agree to take them and sus
tain the loss. he would place them in the hands
of an agent to he sold for their benefit. Gen
Thornton finding that he could do better in Eu-
rope with these bonds, negotiated them in Ebg
land, so that the contractors realized So per cent
IN Illinois, while he adds, dollar bonds, pay
able in the United States. would not have com
manded more than seventy three per cent, if
even indeed they could be sold at all" 1t was
TO the interest Of Gen. Thornton to allow the con
tractors the Whole amount, Us they were to pay
hlm per Centage nn the amount received for
their benefit, he was, therefore, not only their
agent but an Interested witness for them.
These proceedings show that in the opinion of
the governor, the contractors, and their agent
that 1t was understood by all the parties that the
application was made to the governor, because
lie bonds could not be sold at par aud that he
authorized their disposal "a that the state should
not be required to pay more than the face Of the
bond, and that the true par value Of a state bond,
~ understood at the time, was the precise amount
that the state mu-t pay to redeem 1t, and there
fore, Gen. Thornton adds, that the whole of
the exchange has been secured 10 tie canal fpnd' 81
The very ground Of the application was because
., 4, & Al.
bonds at par, was not authorized by the then cx-
istlng laws 10 dispose of them for less It is
thus clear that the governor would not have
issued the bonds had he not understood that it
would not cost the state more than par to redeem
them, and the contractors must have 50 under
stood it, as they would not have directed a sale
at not le,, than seventy five cents in par funds,
IN New York
See house reports OF ls10-l, page ?s: Gen.
Thornton, in the same report, after his return.
add, that the contract has received the formal
appreciation of your cXcelicncy, of the board Of
commissioners, and OF the contractors unanimous
ly' And the treasurer in hls report page 1872,
house reports lSIo-4l- referring to this sub
ject says, "and deducted for loss ON sales Of ca
nal lands, by Gen. Thornton, their agent, which
deduction and Joss was agreed to and sanctioned
by said contractors In addition To all this, the
contractors signed an agreement authorizing the
sale, afterwards approved Of the same, and gave
receipt to the treasurer.
These claimants also claim that because they
received scrIp al par when it was only worth
from seventy five TO eighty cents, they -hould,
therefore be allowed the difference with interest.
Whilst the committee are willing to concedc that
It would he right that the state should comply
with tber contracts and engagements, vet these
cases stand un the same ground with bonds held
and owned by all the creditors of the state.
Bond. and scrip have been issued, and the state
II under obligation to redeem the same, with in
tCre-t, aud if th> difference should now be allow
ed, the state will ultimately be bound, beside,
making UP the difference to the contractors, to
pay the whole amount now outstanding, with in
toiest
II q, to bc regretted that the original holders
Of thI, Indebtedness should be required to sus.
ain the loss, but there would be II, much lu.ice
IN making up the loss on our bonds held by Wild
ow, and orphans, and others who advanced their
money to the state, on the plighted faith Of the
stutc. to pay the bonds with the interest accord.
ny to the contract In some Of the cases it
was understood at the time Of making tie con
tracts that they were TO receive the same 1T par
and IN all Of them receipt has been given, III
which they acknowledged to have received the
same at par.
In tie scdund class. damages are claimed on
The contracts fur work ON the canal and internal
improvements in all Of which case, the claim.
ants submitted their claims To the persons ap.
pointed by law To superntond their contracts.
and afterwards n board Of appraisers to adjust
their claims, whose decision was declared by law
TO be final The rule Of law !, well settled that
when the parties agree 10 submit their claim to a
BOARD and thus assent to have them case decided,
they are bound 10y the decision, This principle
was decided 10y the supreme court Of Mississippi,
IN vol. s, Smedes Il Marshall
The last class consists Of claims for damages in
consequence Of the constr elton Of the canal and
feeders through the land Of the claimants, and IN
some instances different owners ufthc same tract
have claimed damages. In one case, two differ.
rnt owners of tract of so acres have proved that
they have each sustained damages to the amoun,
uf $1,000, in another the claimant proves hy his
own oath that his land would have sold for 500
per acre before the canal was made and in most
of the cases the claims nre proved by the tS,i.
mony of each other The lci ofcougrr.s Of 1927
authorized the state uf Illinois to construct tie
canal, and thus agreeing To allow the state tu en-.
ter upon the public lands for the purpose of ma.
king the canal the subsequent purchasers cannot
after the original owner allowing it to be thus
dedicated and declaring it to bc public highway
have right to enter upon tie land or to claim
any damages They take it subject to the con.
disions upon which their gmntor held, and youl
committee cannot distinguish these cases from
that Of an owner Of town or city, after having
dedicated the streets to the public and afterwards
selling the same tract 10 purchaser, cuncndlng
for the right to abolish the plat of said town OF
city. The owner of the lands through which the
canal and fcclers run, having authorized the con,
strurton of the cannl can, with no more proprir.
ty, set up any claim to damages than would the
owner oi tract authorizing the construction of u
mill dam, set up any claim for the recovery OF
damages for the Overlooking of the steam, the
natural consequence FROM the work thus uuthuri.
zrdS
The committee have thus disposed of the dam
ages To lands purchased from the United States
By the act Of the legislature of 1929 aud all sub.
scQucnt acts the state expressly reserved the right
to conssruc, the canal on lands held by the state
or which ,hc might sell In one case the claim.
ant contends that he owned part OF the 10th sec,
ton, and this not belonging to the United States,
could not be appropriated for public purposes
without compensation, but although the 10th
section was granted for school purposes yet it
cannot be denied that the grant was made to the
state. ard that the state wunld have a right to
- IL Il