Daily Iowa State Democrat. [volume] (Davenport, Iowa) 1856-1859, 1859-08-17


his absence the Press will be conduct
ed by the Doc, one Of Johnson's
friends but who the devil "Doc." is,
we are in the dark. "Doc." come
out like man and explain yourself.
tVrom the Council Blu6's Bugls.l
10 l.. w Rabbit Defaultes
The Black Republican press through
out the State having charged us with
being detaulter it is natural to sup
pose that the question is frequently
asked by both friends and foes, Is
L. w. Rabbit Defaulters' To show
the position which we have occupied,
it is necessary for US to state that rs
Register of the Land Office we receive
ed about $4,000 in fees for locating
Land Warrants under the Act of Sd
March, 1855. We contended that the
fees we're given to us for our services,
and the Commissioner of the General
Land Office contended that they be-
longed to the Government. The fol-
lowing is the section of the law Of
Congress under which we set up our
right to the fees =:
Act Sd March, 1856. "SEc. 6. And
be 1t further enacted That the regis
tiers and receivers of the several Land
Offices shall be severally authorized to
charge and receive for their services IN
locating all warrants under the provis-
ions of this oct, the same compensation
or percentage to which they are enti-
tied by law for sales Of public lands for
cash, at the rate of one dollar and
twenty-five cents per acre, the said
compensation to be paid by the assign
ees or holders of such warrants"
On page Of the book of instruc-
tions issued by the Commissioner OF
the General Land Office, on the Sd of
May, 1855, we find the following:
"The following fees are charagable by
the land officers and must be paid at the
time Of the location.
For 4O-acre warrants so cents each to
the Register and Receiver, total $l,OO
For 6O-acre warrant IS cents each to
the Register and Receiver, total l.5O
For an 8O-aere warrant dollar each
to the Register aud Receiver. total 200
For a 160"acre warrant 2 dollars each
to the Register and Receiver, total 400
The following is an extract from q
letter written BY us on the 2lst OF
June, 1856, to the Commissioner Of
the General Land Office, in which we
reviewed the Commissioners letter.in-
Strucling US orpSv over the fees in our
hands to the Receiver, and proposed
to submit the question to the Supreme
Court of the United States !:
"This section (6th) Of the Act of
1855 gives me the fees received foflo-
eating the warrants issued under ite
provisions, for my services and they be.
come my property the moment they
are received by me, and acknowledge
no authority as legally existing by
which any person, or officer can by
mere instruction compel me to surren-
der my property into the hands Of the
Government, or any officer thereof.
In taking this position l do not in
tend any disrespect to the Hon.
Commissioner, nor do | in anywise
desire to set at naught the authority of
my government but firmly beloking
thst the fees in my hands are my own,
do not hesitate to say so in language
which cannot be misunderstood. l de-
sire at all time to yield strict obedience
to the laws Of my country and think
that where l become interested in hav-
ing the force and effect of any law in
terpeted and established, l have right
to appeal to the proper tribunal for
such Interpretation. l do not wish to
retain any money in my hands that
does not belong to me one single mo-
ment. Should it meet the views of
the Hon. Commissioners, as the case
will have to be finally determined by
the Supreme Court OF the United
States to make an agreed ease of the
point in controversy and submit at
once to said court, l will name a per-
SON N Washington CITY to attend to
the case for me, and let the case be de-
cidsd imusediatsly, and I pledge N.Y.
self that IN case the point is decided
against me t, pay over the excess fees
to the Receiver vithin tsceive hours at.
ter the decision shall be made knoUn to
ne AND FOR THE FAITHFUL
FULFILLMRMT OF THIS PLEDGE
l AN READY TO GIVE ANY
REASONABLE SECURITY THAT
THE HON. COMMISSIONERS NAY
REQUIRE"
In . letter Of the 18th August fol-
lowing We renewed the above PROPOSE
ton to submit the case to the CONT
The proposition was not accepted and
We, were removed becanss We refused
to pay over the fees in September fol-
lowing. Suit was brought against US
in 1859. Il was never continued
upon our mstioa, and thst it was
not our fault. Had the Depart
ment submitted to our proposition the
cass would have bssa decided BY the
Supreme Court ysan ego. several
oaset besides The ode btoonAt asainss
n Aavs bees tesuneA heard und dsci.
~ sre4 N tpMt ~ ~ n ~
s1ooes1 aAjsSot " kasa
~ lbsN Atfs,s isaisssal i