The Kalida venture. [volume] (Kalida, Ohio) 1841-1865, 1853-08-19
oannl Land sales.


Democrat Of The 9th inst:
Defance Democrat.
| Mr.. HUNTER: | had not intended
Ereply TO any Of the charges made agalnsf
me by 'ho Kalda Venture, Lima Argus.
North West, &c, until requested by an
|edi,oiial in your paper OF Sth inst. 10
give my side Of the picture. This vii
do 10 crafty my friends my opponents
have no wish 10 be convinced OF any
mans honesty, and, course they nave
no claim TO any explanation from me-
Every acl OF mine IN relation TO The sale
OF the State lands, IS matter OF record
but lest your readers should not be nc
lquain'ed with the facts, ! will briefly
capi'ulaie. AS 10 al'edged frauds, with
which am charged, will say that ior
some days previous 10 The "a OF January,
1853, (ihe day on which the reduction,
IN price was to take place,) | was aware
that II ere would be many applications Tor
the State lands on the first day Of the
reduction in price. BY The act OF April
l6lb, 1852, there was TO be reduction
of seventy-five per cent. TO actual settlers,
which act was 10 take effect from aud
after the irsi day ol January, 1893.
Said law required every person making
application !ur land under this act 70 fils
an affidavit, that i was his or her inienS
lion TO enter upon and improve The land
within twelve months, and that he or she
did not enter the land for speculation
merely, but for The purpose OF securing.
home for himself or herself and family;
and no limit us 10 quantity. as bad been
under former laws; and had this clause
been in The above named act, | would
have had no trouble in managing she
sales Of frs, day of reduction; and being
Z somewhat AT q loss "a know bV what rule
N he Governed. advised with men expe.
rienced in land Office practice. and some
ibree or four Of our hes, attorneys, and
Those whom I believe had no inieres, IN
he sale. and ,here was bur one opinion
as 10 ,he law,and nv du,y. and that was
,b, conld no, preven, any person from
entering asmuoh land as he would swear
he would improve. &C.. as required BY
llaw and / was governed by good conn
s.l in ,be matter. and rels,ive TO selling
q, auc,iop. Of which so much has been
A s,;d n sone ouaders. / was governed by
j ,he same rule which / understand obtains
in our courts. In The absence Of statute
law apnIicabIe 10 the case. thew take The
Iecisions of ,be licber ,ribunals. The
he's, o,ide | could find unde, the clrcum.
.,.rces uss I'M ,ac, or Countess anproved
Anil % 1900 en,uled an ac, making
u r,r,her r,ov;sions Gar ,be sale of ,he pub-
llic lands ,he 6,h and Las, section Of said
act nrovides. uTba, where two ,or more
nersnns shalJ acnlv for The purchase. al,
PdWa,v SaIe uri,no sqpp ,r~~. =, ~, aaonA
} time the Register shall determine the
preference. by forthwith offering the iraci
10 the highest bldder" Now bvlhis rule
was governed, and confined myself
strictly to i, which could no' perceive
would give any reason for dsssaiisfac-
lion, either from the snle, or the pnrcha-
sers, for the result was the applicants
we're willing to bid, which gol up quite
a spirited competition, and the lands were
sold for several thousand dol ars abnve
The entry price; and ! leave it 10 those
attending the sale TO decide whether the
salo was fairly conducted or not. .a
+ II has been claimed that strict con-
struciion Of the law required limit sold
TO one individual. 10 such consiruc>
,ionisis, and particularly to the makers
| of that law, who thus conslrue il, / will
lrefer TO the fact thai the legislature then
Lin session did ON The l2Ih day of Jaou.
lary. 1853. amend ,he law, limiting the
quantity to one quarter section. This
amendment. If I an no, mistaken, passed
Ibo,h Houses without a negative vote.
Now if such we,e the law az passed
| Anril .l6ih. 1852. wha, necessity ior the
amendments?
| have inns oiyen ron brier s,a,enfen,
Of ,be facls IN ,I,s case with The reasons
which ooverned INV conduc, in The ,,aas.
ac,iop and whether INV action was cor>
!, Lo ,