Washington sentinel. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1853-1855, 1854-08-04
d. um m nnitatf6.
House OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Hon. JOHN WILSON,
~. IL I1....I

| commissioner UeHeIut I-uUU OUfCc.
! SIR: will not rdopt the style which you
have made use Of in your comuSdnication to
ne, dated the 25th inst, and which was pub
ished in the Sentinel of the 29th, but will ad-
dress myself to what suppose you intended as
arguments and excuses for Withdrawing from
sale one hundred and ffty-three townships,
containing three million FIVE hundred twenty
| five thousand one hundred and twenty acres of
land in Wisconsin without authority of law.
In the first paragraph Of your letter you ex-
cuse yourself for publishing it and not sending
me copy, by saying that my communication
| TO you was not received at your office" II
any excuse was necessary, and did not think
there was, for publishing your reply in the same
paper in which my letter appeared, you should
have framed one more plausible, since / did
enclose you a printed copy in the same envel-
| ope with another letter on another subject,
which you have since answered.
| Your reason-for you attempt to give one,
instead of offering an excuse-for the error in
using the word 6delegates" to designate the
delegate from Minnesota only, may be satisfac-
| tory to you, as you seem to be not difficult in
| such matters, but you unfortunately forget
! that one of the representatives from Iowa had
signed the paper, and that in your efforts to
escape from one blunder you commit another,
rom which you cannot extricate yourself even
by charging it to the types.
You next say that my belief that " is new
(" to withdraw lands from sale in anticipation
Of an act of Congress" has no foundation in
fact" and that | have overlooked the numer-
| Gus notices of such Withdrawals that have for
| years been published to the country"
! was writing of Withdrawals of lands from
sale in anticipation of an act of Congress grant
ing such lands to States to aid in the construc.
tion of railroads and canals. said it was new
in the history of the transactions of the Gen.
eral Land Office to do so. You, in effect, say
that it's not Now to the proof Why did you
not name some of the numerous notices" you
alluded to? Was there withdrawal in Illinois
before that grant was made? Or in Mississippi,
or Alabama before that grant was made? Or
in Missouri before that grant was made :?
Or in Arkansas before that grant was made?
Or in Michigan before the grant tor the
Sault Ste. Marie canal was made, or in Min
nesota before that grant was made? If So,
| which? Your numerous cases" are like the
tulilment Off numerous promises, of ex-
ceeding rare occurrence. Are you candid
when you name the order of withdrawal of the
land in the Menasha district as precedent for
the withdrawal of the lands in the Mineral
| Point and Willow River districts, when ex-
pressly said, that the same reasons operated in
my mind against the former case as against
the latter, and my letter was applicable to both,
| giving my reasons for not protesting against
| that order before.
And now for the first argument you have at
tempted in your letter, which ! will in q few
short words, in spite of your great flourish,
and, excuse me for saying, your clumsy at
tempt at severity, convince even yourself
that 1t IS hardly even specious, and has not
the least foundation in fact l refer to your
much Wanted sympathy with, and care for,
the rights Of those persons who have "valid
pre- enption claims" in excepting them from
the operation of your lawless order. BY taking
to yourself The merit of excepting from the OPP
Grafton of that order this class of persons, you
assume that you might have denied them the
| right of presumption under the act of Congress
OF September a, lS4l, if you had not been ac-
tuated by an ardent desire to secure to my con-
sttuents greater privileges than were claimed
for them in the application made by certain
senators and delegates" a copy of which was
published with your letter. For your special
protection am sure you will be duly remem
bered, especially if you succeed in convincing
them that you have really done what you take
| credit for. But i am very certain that unless
! you adopt different mode of stating facts and
drawing conclusions from premises, you will be
as unfortunate in convincing them of your sin
cerity as you will be in satisfying them of your
| good manners.
1t is fortunate for them that their right to
make valid presumption claims" is secured by
act OF Congress, and not suffered at the will
of the sensihrely .fastidious' head Of the
department, or Of the great "friend of the
west" the present head Of the General Land
H.. ~.
such an order Of uithdraicdl as that under con
s,derdt'on, to prerent any person entitled thereto
from dcailiRg himself Of the benefit Of the
presumption ldp of iS4l If you deny this,
will you write out your decision, that it may
be given to the world as a rare specimen Of
the construction Of plain law, which would,
IN effect repeal 1t. This is my answer TO the
position assumed by you. Where, then, is all
your Wanted regard for the actual settler, and
your desire to protect him from the effects of
land monopoly and spectators, upon the sub.
Ject OF which you have expended so much labor
and concern? / submit to you whether this
disingenuous mode of replying to my letter is
becoming to the office you hold and / desire
to know whether you have found among its
archives precedent either in style OF argu-
ment for the course you have adopted, in order
to extricate yourseffro position into which
you placed yourself by rash and an unlawful
act. Having shown that the withdrawal was
unlawful and unusual, might, with propriety,
bring this letter to close at this point, did
not deem it my duty to correct your miscon.
struction and perversion Of my former letter.
| therefore, shall, in as few words as possible,
notice your remarks upon the policy Of the
order.
And before aude to the principle, beg
to call your attention to the ten townships re-
served in the county of Grant, on the east side
of the Mississippi river, and also to the twenty
one townships in Pierce and Polk counties, on
the south side Of the st. Croix river. You do
not pretend to say that it is in contemplation
to build any part Of the road you name, within
the limits Of the State of Wisconsin, at either
Of those points. Aud you admit that the Min
nesota grant does not attach to or affect any
lands in the State Of Wisconsin, and am per
fectly certain that being par excellence the
Friend Of The scest," you would not consent,
in your character of prochein ami that by
any future grant land would be taken within
the limits Of one State and given to another