Cleveland morning leader. [volume] (Cleveland [Ohio]) 1854-1865, 1860-03-07
~, claim or John W. Allen.


Ford by resolutions Of the General Assembly,
to obtain from the Government Of the United
States any lands to which this State may be
entitled under the grants heretofore made BY
Congress for Canal and other purposes" Mr..
Allen to retain one-third part of the lands cb-
tanned in payment for his services, provision
oc therssolution under which the contract was
entered into being that no charge should be
made on the Treasury,
Mr.. ALLRN repaired to Washington, and af-
tor much investigation and expense procured
title for the State to 26,223 acres OF land un~
der the Wabash and Erie grant, and 44,l4l
acres on the Miami Extension grant He claims
also that subsequently, by the passage of two
acis of Congress, ono in August, 1882, the 9th.
ar in March, 1856, he also secured the title to
the State to $4,000 acres, making total Of
I2O,s64 acres added to the State domain
through his services.
In the fall of 1851 Mr.. ALLEN applied to
Gov. Wood for aid in the selection of his share
under the contract in the Is,269 acres of the
Wabash and Erie lands, and 44,l4l of Maumee
Extension Canal lands. The lands had then
been appraised, and were ordered to be sold
under the act of March 23d, 1850.
John Wood, then Auditor of State, expressed
the opinion, officially, that the contract was il
legal. lst Because it provided fOg adispOsi-
ton of part Of the lands, different from the
grant by Congress TO the State, and was, there
fore, in contravention Of the acts Of Congress.
I'd. Because the act OF March %, 1850, pro
vided for the sppraisement and sale Of the
whole, which, he thought, the Legislature
would not have done if they had contemplated
OF intended by the resolution that part might
he given or conveyed away Tor procuring res
idue Under these circumstances, Mr.. Allen
proposed TO bid off one>third Of the lands at
the sale, at a price not less than the appraise~
ment, and to waive title or conveyance from
the State until the validity of the contract
could be determined by the Supreme Court.
To this proposition the Governor and Auditor
acceded, and instructions were forwarded to
the Receiver of the Land Office to receive the
bids of Mr.. Allen. The Receiver, contrary to
these directions, refused to receive the bids Of
Mr. Allen on tho terms proposed, and the land
claimed by him was therefore sold to others un.
der the rules and regulations of the Land Of
fee.
At the session of the Legislature in 1852
Mr.. ALLEN presented his claim for fulfllment
of the contract A resolution was passed
declaring the contract void for illegality
and denying the right of the Governor
to maFe such contract. Three years age
Mr.. Allen asked the Legislature to provide
for the conveyance of any land to which he
had right under the contract, or if refused, tc
permit him to try his rights before the Courts
a bill on the subject passed both Houses, but 4
slight amendment made by the Senate failed o.
concurrence in the House, in the last hour O.
the session. At the last session a similar bill
passed the House by large majority.
A like bill for the relief of Mr.. ALLEN ii
pending in the present Legislature, and The
Judiciary Committee in the House have re
ported the facts in the case and in favor of thC
pass age of the bill. His is legal and proper
claim beyond question, and it is now five yeaTi
since MI. A. first asked the law making power
of the State to enable him to test his legal rights
in the courts established to administer justict
between parties, and without respect to persons
He has suffered great injury by the unreasOna
BILE delay, and we trust an act for his relief will
bo promptly passed. The Committee thus
close their report
The committee fOrbeaI expressing an opinion
as to the legality Ofthe contract, or on the ques
ton OF fraud and unfairness, but are constrained
to say, from an examination of all the cores
pondence and papers on file, they discover no
evidence TO justify the charge That in the
opinion of the committee, the State can, upon
no correct principle, be justified in withholding
from Mr.. Allen, the compensation to which, by
the terms of the contract he is entitled, without
affOrding to him the opportunity to assert lis
rights against the State, whatever they may
be, by complete and full investigation of all
questions which may arise upon the contract,
both of law and of fact, and his alleged perform
ance of the same. It is conceded faet.th the
State has received the title to and the proceeds
of a large tract of land through the services Of
Mr.. Allen rendered under this contract, and
that the State has thus far refused to perform
the contract OF to permit Mr. Allen to Vindieate
his rights or establish and enforce the contract
through the Judicial tribunals Of the State. The
committee, in view of the magnitude Of the
claim, as well as of the former action of the
Legislature upon it, do not feel justified in
recommending the performance of the contract
on the part of the Stste, but they cannot satisfy
themselves that q refusal to perform the con.
tract or give to the party who alleges that he
has in good faith performed it on his part, an
opportunity to test its validity and fairness and
prove what he has done under it for the State,
would be consistent with justice and the good
faith which the State should practice towards
its citizens aud all others who contract with it,
and they therefore recommend the passage of
the bill hereto appended.
A. HARLAN,
W. B. WOODS,
-l..ls -. JOHN NJ. VINCENT.
A. c. VORIS,
]. W. ROBINSON,