Minnesota weekly times. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1854-1859, 1854-08-15
WEDNESDAY, AUG. 3, 1854.
LETTER OF MIR. WILSON.

Yesterday we published the letter of Mr.. East
man to the Commissioner Of the Land Office, and
to-day we give synopsis Of that gentleman's re-
ply, rcgrettng that its length precudes its publ
cation entire. After explaining to Mr.. Eastman
the reasons for calling him "delegate,' Mr..
Wilson proceeds to demonstrate that his action
without consulting the representatives and dele
gates of the various States and Territories, is not
without precedent, and that the transactions Of
the General Land Office fully sustain him in his
course. As to the claims of the bona fde settler,
he remarks -
In the paragraph referred to, you state that
s'such n course is pregnant with mischief, and
may be made the means of oppression against the
bona fde settler, and of speculation for those who
have the ear of the Commissioner or President at
the expense Of men of limited means, who desire
to purchase land for actual settlement and culti-
walton, &C." My dear sir, your anxeties in this
connection are entirely groundless, for if you had
read the '' notice of withdrawal," you could not
have overlooked the fact that valid pre-. emption
claims' excepted from its operation, and
hence that the 'bOna fidc settler," and the ''mcn
of limited means who desire to purchase land for
actual settlement and cultivation," can enter by
pre-emption now as we'll as formerly; and, here
AFTER till the route of the road is fixed, and the
grant attaches under the law, any of the lands
embraced in such withdrawal, which may not be
reserved for public say, if you had read
the notice, YOU could not have overlooked this
fact, for cannot for Il moment suppose that the
representative from Wisconsin would wilfully mis-
represent the action OF this Office.
We are glad to find the Land Commissioner thus
constituting the notice Of the withdrawal of the
lands from market.
If we understand it, men now living on the lands
the West side of the Mississippi can enter their
pre-emption as formerly, and if sos they arc shicl
ded from any action Of the railroad company, but
persons cannot 90 on those lands ''nOw" and
pre-cmpt. For instance, by the reading of the
clause it is inferred that any one who wishes could
90 on the lands to which reference is made, and
after residing there short time prescmpt. We
believe one has any right on the lands in qucs
ton, but those who can prove up their pre-cmp-
tions, prior to The wiHdrawGl Of the lands from
anaylet. DO not be deceived.
Tho matter cannot be made too plain, for
it interests 4 great portion of our people. We
hope the "valid pre-cmption claim +" clause won't
prove something else from what settlers are lei to
infer, for, if we understand the matter, there is
scarcely ono man out of ten who has got ''vald
known by the lawyers of the Wall street compa-
ny previous to the sale of the lands being with
drawn. If ''valid prc-cmption' means that n
person must stake out one hundred and sixty acres
Of land, make the necessary improvements, live
on it in person, not by proxy, until he is called
on to prove up his claim, why it is sclf-evidcnt
that but a very few persons will be able to hold
the land. If, on the other hand, persons who have
bouglf the improvements from the original settler,
and have lived on and cultivated the land up to
the time when they called upon to prove up
their right, can hold the land, then that is anoth
er question, and one which will meet the cxi gen
ccs of the case. This nice distinction ought to
be made known, for if the former construction Of
the " valid pre- cmption" law prevails, most of
the land on the line of the road will go to the
company, whereas, if the latter prevails, the bona
fdc settlers and the present settlers are safe from
the greedy clutches of spectators in the shape of
railroad land sharks.
1t certainly was unfortunate for settlers to have
the lands advertised for sale at a given time, and
Just as they had got their money together to pay
for said land to have the sale postponed. Bv
the time they could have the pririlcge of paying
for the land, hard times might come upon them.
and then spectators would step in and procure
that which they had so long sought to obtain
The question ought to be settled by the Depart
mcnt' "what is a valid prc-emption claim p
Again. Can man go on to the line Of the road
60 'no,c - and make rre-emption? or does Mr..
Wilson'S Interpretation apply to those who have
proved up their pre-cmption previous to the with
drawal of the lands? We ask for information
There is so much rascalty going on that we wish
to know exactly the point. But Mr.. Wilson con-
tinues and raps Mr.. Eastman over the head in
this wise:
The only persons, then, who have right to
complain of this withdrawal are the spectators,
or rs they are sometimes termed, the hcartless
speculators. who enter lands with hope of ex-
torting any increased price for them from the
'.b0nd fde settlers and men Of limited means,
who desire to purchase for actual settlement and
cultivation" If you were not a representative
of a land State. | should certainly suppose from
YOUR letter. and the facts in the case, that you
were contending in behalf of these specula-
TORS" and against "squtters' rights" With this
explanation YOU will perceive that the rest OF this
paragraph in your letter, is an argument against
the soundncss of your views, if ii have any point
or force.
As to whether the bill gave him authority to
Withdraw land from sale outside of the Territory
of Minnesota, he does not say, but argues that
such was the intention Of the bill, and therefore
he is right in the course he has pursued. On this
point he closes as follows:
Ii is worse than useless. then, to suggest that
no bill has been introduced for these extensions
as they must be made to render that part of the
road valuable Tor which lands have been appro-
priated.
One of Mr.. Eastman's objections was, that he
and his colleagues had not been consulted with
as to the withdrawal of the lands in Wisconsin,
TO this Mr.. Wilson replies:
Permit me to suggest that it is neither the prov
ince nor the duty of this Office to solicit signatures
to such requests, or to consult with those who ap
pear to take no interest in the matter, whether
they shall or shall not be complied with; but the.
must either be granted or refused as presented.
He then quotes letter signed by George w
Jones, Henry Dodge, Henry NJ. Rice and John P
Cooke, asking suspension Of