Washington sentinel. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1853-1855, 1854-07-29
d. 0 NJ m unifateD.
To The Hon. Benjamin O. Eastman, Represen-
tatiue in Congress from Wisconsin.
GENERAL LAND OFrIcE, July 26, ls5

tattue an Congress from Wisconsin.
GENERAL LAND OFFICE, July 26, 1854.
SIR: Ny attention has been called to an ar
ticle published in the Washington Sentinel OF
this morning, purporting to be letter OF the
2lst instant, signed by you, and addressed to
this Office. AS no such letter has been received
at this Office it is presumed that You desire an
answer through the same channel; and with
the permission of the editors of the Sentinel
will so respond.
The notice of the withdrawal of railroad
lands, to which you refer, was prepared with
special reference to the object contemplated BY
it-that is, a correct description OF the lands
withdrawn from market, and not for the pur-
pose of designating the particular individuals at
whose instance they were Withdrawn. Hence
the mistake in using the plural Delegates in
stead of the singular, il, indeed, IT be not a
typographical error. The term delegate"
however, is now generally, if not uniformly, up.
piled to the representative OF Territory, and
therefore it could not have been inferred that
you, representative Of State, signed the
application without forced and tortuous con-
struction Of the notice of withdrawal, the term
representative not being used in it, This
would seem to be your own view Of the matter,
for Won only suggest that "H might be sup
posed" You Joined in the "earnest solicita-
ton"
You further state: II is new to me, and l
believe in the history Of the transactions in
the General Land Office, that lands can be
properly reserved from sale in anticipation OF
an act of Congress upon the bare request OF
any gentlemen, whether they be in or out OF
Congress" This belief has no foundation in
fact, and you must have paid but little atten.
ton to the transactions of the General Land
Office, if you have overlooked the numerous
notices of such Withdrawals that have for years
been published to the country. But you have
not, however, overlooked them all, for you spe.
cially refer in the last part of your letter to
another, and previous notice of the same char
acter, which will be consideredinits place. How,
then, could this course of action be new to
you? In the paragraph referred to, you state
that "such 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 earofthe COMMISSIONER
the President at the expense OF men OF limited
means, who desire to purchase land for actual
settlement and cultivation, &C." My dear SIR,
your anxieties in this connexion are entirely
groundless, for if you had read the "notice OF
| withdrawal" you could not have overlooked the
| fact that "vaid presumption claims are ex-
| cepted from its operation, and hence that the
bona fide settler" and the "men of limited
| means who desire to purchase land for actual
settlement and cultivation" can enter by pre-
emption now as well 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 uses. say, if you had
read the notice, YOU could not have overlooked
this fact. for / cannot for a moment suppose
that the representative from Wisconsin would
wilfully misrepresent the action of this office.
| The only persons then who have right to
| complain ofthis withdrawal are the spectators
| or as they are sometimes termed, the beartles;
/ spectators who enter lands with hope of ex
tortinp any increased price for them from the
bona fde settlers and men of limited means
who desire to purchase for actual settlement
and cultivation" If you were not represen
tative of land State, should certainly sup
pose from your letter, and the facts in the case
| that you were contending in behalf of " these
spectators" and against "squatters' rights
! With this explanation you will perceive that
the rest Of this paragraph in your letter, is an
argument against the soundness OF your views,
if it have any point or force.
You state that I" the language Of the hin
nesota act confines the grant and limits all its
benefits and its operations to the boundaries o.
that territory" This is true, You were ad
vised in a personal conference before your letter
was published, when the whole subject was ex
/ planned TO you and yet you know there Is moi
a single individual so silly as to suppose thai
it is not intended to connect that road with the
Mississippi on the south, and Lake Superior
on the north and that without such connex
ions, there could not be amore absurd PROPOSE
4 A. Al IF hit %
me ask you, sir, did you not vote for tina
bill? And il yea, was il your intention u
squander uselessly that much Of the public
domain, for the construction OF road, th'
commencement and termination of which arr
inaccessible /? cannot believe that you would
be thus reckless Of the public domain, but tina
you supposed with every other reasonable mar
that the necessary and proper extensions woulC
be made in due time, connecting the waters o
the Mississippi with those of Lake Superior
With these connexions, facilities will be fur
nshed TO tho trade and travel Of that who'll
region, Of which it is now entirely deprived
as / am advised that the only safe route Il
Fond-du.L Lac, is some one thousand FIVE hundre,
miles. round BY way Of Saute Ste. Marie, il
summer, with all the dangers Of navigating tn
entire length Of Lake Superior, and BY tn
slow, suffering and dangerous process of tn
snow shoe line, in winter. II is worse thai
useless then to suggest that no bill has BEEF
introduced for these extensions, as they mus
be made to render that part Of the road valua
BILE, for which lands have been appropriated.
You state that you were surprised and NOR
tilted that this reservation had been mad
without being yourself consulted. Permit m
to suggest that 1t is neither the province no
the duty Of this Office to solicit signatures d
such requests, or 10 consult with those VIII
appear to take no interest in the matter, whe
Their they shall or shall not be complied with
but they must either be granted or refused q
presented. Yet, sir, Wisconsin was neithe
unrepresented nor misrepresented in this mat
ter. Her venerable senator, the pure and pa
triotic Dodge, united in this request, and surel
no man better understands, OF Is more alive {,
the best interests Of his State, and none les
selfish in securing those interests. What, then
does he ask2 Here is the first application;
4" To the President Of The United States;
@The undersigned would respectfully repre-
sent that Congress has passed bill for gran
of land in aid Of so much Of railroad from
| Ga n