Washington sentinel. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1853-1855, 1854-08-15

The act of Congress making donations for those
roads, authorized the legislature Of the State
which meets biennially to fix routes of these
roads the governor did not see proper to call
an extra session of the legislature, but earnest
" insisted that the Withdrawals should be con-
tinued until after the meeting of the legisa
ture, to prevent the lands being taken by spec
ulators. Citizens of Arkansas urged that the
lands should be restored to market, on the
ground that these extensive reservations Sc
riously interfered with the settlement of the
| State. 1t was then held, that the governors
request could not be granted "with due re-
gard to the settlement of the lands, and the
interests of the government" but by Withdraw
| ing these lands from sale or entry, except to
j actual settlers, the object sought by both par
ties would be obtained This course was re-
| commended and adopted, and the same line of
policy has been followed mall subsequent cases..
! But, sir, must now recur to a former part
i of your letter in which you say it is new in
| the history Of transactions of the General Land
! Office to withdraw lands before G. ants are made
by Congress ], in effect, say it is not
and you ask the proof citing several eases, and
among the rest, the grant for the Sault st. Ma
ria canal That, sir, was not grant IN place.
but Of a quantity of land to be selected any
where in the State. Your inquiry, therefore
| in this case, evinces entire ignorance Of the
1 law; but in answer, further, state, that the
lands along the Illinois Central Railroad, in
| Illinois, Alabama, and Mississippi, we're with
/ drawn before the law passed making the grant
| Also for the Brandon and Montgomery road
in Alabama and Mississippi; for the Shreve
/ port and Vicksburg road, in louisiana; for the
! Gains Landing and Texan boundary road and
branch in Arkansas, and for other roads in
Alabama, Mississippi, louisiana, Missouri and
Florida In fact, sir, the action OF this Office
in this particular has been founded upon the
applications Of many of the ablest lawyers,
purest patriot and best friends of the actual
settlers in this country.
have thus shown, as ] think, beyond the
possibility of refutation, that you have erred in
your calculations, that you have erred in your
! facts, and have erred in the law. / have shown
that the President has the power by the clear
| letter of the law, to withdraw lands from sale
1 or entry, so as to exclude from pre- emption
| persons who settle on those lands subsequent
to such withdrawal, and that special care has
been taken, in making those Withdrawals, to
protect the actual settlers, and secure to them
the presumption privilege. Your denial of this
hypothesis, and your argument on that denial
are therefore simply absurd, and scarcely
equaled by your suggestion, that the mineral
lands of Wisconsin are not subject to pre-
emption, when the acts of Congress previously
referred to, expressly declared that they are
So far as your colleague, Judge Macy con-
ours in your opinions, as stated in his card
wish the above to be regarded as applicable to
bis views also and think he viii find some
difficulty as well as yourself, in convincing his
constituents that he has sought to promote
their best interests by adopting your views,
based as they are, upon total ignorance Of the
| legislation of Congress on the subject; and
| that no further progress has been made in pro-
| viding against the repetition of acts which You
consider so arbitrary and so palpably against
law, than simply proposing bill, and letting
it rest in the hands of one of the committees of
the House of Representatives, as you say you
have done.
Your attempted sarcasms at my official su.
perior and myself do not consider worthy of
notice. am not his apologist or panegyrist.
He needs none. His enlarged and enlightened
policy in the administration of his department
is before the country, and by his acts he is
willing to be judged by those who are compe-
tent to appreciate them--knowing that the
shafts Of calumny or malevolence fall harm
lessly at the feet Of those who are shielded by |
truth and justice, or recoil TO wound the hand |
that cast them.
But, sir, you say that "appear to affect a |
great indifference to the signatures Of gentle |
men-members Of Congress-and yet you Ql |
have seen the time they we're not only thought |
Of Importance, but solicited with "avidity."' |
Now, sir, if you mean by this to intimate that
| solicited the signatures of gentlemen-mem-
bers Of Congress-with or without avidity, |
pronounce the statement without foundation in
fact in every particular, and defy the proof. i
know that many Of my friends have manifested
a deep interest in my behalf. but they did so, at
their own mere motion, influenced as they have
been pleased to say, less by regard for my
personal interest than that of the service.
Thus, sir, you see that your charge OF disin-
genuousness is not only triumphanuy refuted,
but cast back on yourself: and that you are
placed in the unfortunate dilemma of being
compelled to bear it. or screen yourself under the
plea Of total ignorance on subject with which
your duty required you to be well acquainted
Yet sir, i cannot pass silently your remark as
to the blighting policy Of the government in at
tempting to cripple the lumber trade. This re-
mark is as disingenuous as 1t is unjust. What
has been the policy thus stigmatized? Every
effort has been made to have these lands sur
veyed and brought into market, that all who
chose might purchase or locate them 1t was
found, however, that many persons without
right to do so, we're engaged in stripping these
lands Of their timber, and that too, in the most
wasteful manner, choosing only the best pieces,
leaving the rest to rot, or setting fire to it and
burning up immense quantities of the best, with
that which was less valuable. The lands thus
despeiled Of their timber we're comparatively
vaueless, many portions being entirely stripped,
not leaving sufficient even FOR farming pur-
poses. This was prejudicial alike to the in
terests of the State and general government
The supreme court Of the United States, and
the opinions Of the attorneys general held that
these depredatons were violations Of law. The
executive was bound to enforce the law, and
i did SO, vigorously, efficiently, and It is be-
ieved successfully. Thus while every effort
has been made by the executive TO promote
md advance the lumber business on Just and
honest principles, the lawless depredators have
been punished. This sir, you call "bighting
oolicy?" Well, to the dishonest it is, and so is
he punishment of every crime but no honest
business was ever blighted by the enforcement 4
# Just and wholesome laws. a
You have thrust this controversy on me with c
tut cause, and for reasons that are best known /