Washington sentinel. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1853-1855, 1854-08-15
O. 0 IN m unitatf0.
Hon. Is. C. Eastman, Representative ia Con-
gress from Wisconsin.
Grammar LAND OrrroE. Aua. ~. 1884.

ultimo, published in the Sentinel of the l4th
instant
In my last letter showed concusiyely that,
instead of advocating the interests OF "bona
fide settlers and men Of limited means, who
desire to purchase land for actual settlement
and cultivation" you had arrayed yourself
against them, and on the side OF spectators,
though, according to the views in your former
letter, the interests of the latter were "preg-
nant with mischief, and might be made the
means of oppression against the bona fide set
into this difficulty by want of knowledge of
the facts and law in the case; and although
such ignorance is inexcusable in legislator.
| especially one from "land State" discussed
the subject on that basis, rather than entertain
the idea that there was "a disposition to mis-
represent the action Of the office. Now, how.
ever, you change 'front.' and, leaving the pre-
emptor to his legal rights, as you understand
them, come out boldly in behalf spectators,
on the ground that "the law would not permit
mineral lands to be pre-empted, and that the
nature and character Of the country would not
permit pine lands to be pre,empted."
! regret, sir, that here again you should
manifest such an entire and inexcusable igno-
rance Of the law in the case, and that it be-.
comes my duty, in view Of this controversy
which you have unnecessarily thrust upon me,
to expose that ignorance.
Before doing SO, however, will call your
attention to some grave errors in your former
letter.
You stated that there has been withdrawn
from market, Sin the county of Grant, &C.,
State Of Wisconsin, twelve townships contain
ing three hundred and seventy-six thousand
four hundred and eighty acres r Now, as
understand it, the average area of townships is
23,O40 acres, consequently in computing the
area OF the dozen, you made slight error OF
one hundred thousand acres. You see, sir, that
your arithmetic is as much at fault as your law.
You knew also, for you are the representative
from that part Of Wisconsin, that many of these
lands have been sold, and on inquiry you would
have been advised that there were but 26,089
acres of land subject to sale or entry in the
townships thus withdrawn. A material differ
ence, is it not, between 376,480 and 26,0S9 !?
You also forgot to mention, that about half q
million of acres of the other lands, embraced in
the notice of withdrawal, had not been sur
veyed. But, then, you know the quantity makes
no difference where principle is concerned. So
much for some Of the facts in your former let
ter; now for tn, latter 1
You state and italicize it, in order to receive
special attention, that "the President has no
power by such an order of withdrawal as that
under consideration to prevent any person en-
titled thereto from awaiting himself of the ben
eft of the pre-emption law of l84l." This, sir,
is begging the question. 1t is not pretended
that the President has the power to prevent
person from avaiing himself Of the right ofpre-
emption, where he has that right. But if you
mean by this sentence to say, as you clearly
wish to imply, that the President has not the
power to withdraw lands from sale or entry, so
as to exclude from the pre-emption privilege
all persons who settle on those lands, after such
withdrawal you do not know or understand the
law in the case. For your information | will
quote so much of it as applies to this question.
1t is as follows:
"No lands included in any reservation by
any treaty, law, or proclamation of the Presi-
dent of the United States, y
shall be liable to entry under the provisions Of
this act" (See 10th section act Of 4th Septem-
Der, lS4l, VOL statutes at large, page 1867
This principle has been recognised in all pre-
emptior laws since lS39-no lands being sub
ject to entry under any of those laws that were
withdrawn from market "by order Of the Pres
ident" simply.
You see, sir, that am not disposed to sane
iion equivocation Of any kind in this matter,
and hence, present the straightforward issue.
This may not be considered as "good manners
by you, but it has the merit Of sincerity at
least. From this you will perceive, no doubt,
and that too, without my writing out a decis-
ion in the case, which, as you suggest, may be
given to the world as a rare specimen of the
construction of plain law, which would, in
effect, repeal it" that the plain letter of the law
excludes from pre-emption all lands "included
In any reservation by proclamation
of the President" Hence, the precaution taken
in these proclamations to protect the actual
settlers by declaring that the withdrawal shall
not exclude them from the benefits Of the pre-
emption act. Now, sir, as you seem to wish |
to give to the world "a rare specimen Of the |
construction of plain law, which would, in |
effect, repeal it," let me assure you that you /
have done so in your communication, which is
the more extraordinary as emanating from the
Of portion Of our citizens, the
most of whose landed interests are based upon
this law and yet their representative, from his
own communication, is evidently ignorant of
one Of its first and most important provisions.
This is still more strange from the fact, that du.
ring the time you have been in Congress, the
act of 1853 was passed, extending the pre-emp-
ton privilege to the alternate reserved sec.
tons, and the act Of 1854, also giving a like
right to those who had settled upon lands before
they were thus withdrawn from market.
But, sir, you state that the law would not
permit mineral lands "to be pre-empted"
VIII You be kind enough TO refer me to that
aw, for really l am ignorant of it. l know
hat tlp act of lS4l excluded from its provi-
'ions lands on which were situated any known
'aines or mines and also know, that so far
Is the region now under consideration is con.
,erned, this provision was actually, or virtually
epealed by the acts of llth July, 1916, Sd
March, l847, and Goth September, 1850. You
certainly could not be ignorant Of these laws,
# vital Importance to the section Of Wisconsin
represented by you, and yet be able to legis.
ate Understandings for the best interests Of
our constituents / cannot suppose so; and
fence infer that this unfortunate statement, in !
our letter, was penned in moment Of forget
illness Of these important facts. 1t is unfor :
innate, however, that the greater part of your
rgument is based on this erroneous view Of =
be case. AS you were in error in this partic- !
lar, in relation to the statute law, fear that J
on have fallen into a similar error in physical &
Nv, when you state that the nature and char. 1
cter of the country would not permit pine {