Mineral Point weekly tribune. (Mineral Point, Wis.) 1859-1868, 1864-06-08

House OF Representatives in 1912, and On,
by committee of the Senate of Wisco,,a
in 1861, the conclusions of which are a4or,st-
apparently without consideration or a.
The facts adverse to the companys claim .
not even alluded to, much less the ar,,,..
and it would seem that they were or;.o
known to the committee. The dat.,;
ton OF the committee in favor of the conn
ny Is however matter of little conseonaro.
10 the State, for they recommend that -.
payment to the company should be made No,
out OF funds OF the State, but out of the M.
tional Treasury. The language of the srb
stltute resolution reported is:
''And the said Secretary shall eIso so+.,
allow to the Milwaukee s. Rock River Canai C auQ
pany such sums Of money as have been rro I'm
exp ended by said company in the survav "a FeIs
ton of said canal, in the construction - ga
far as the same has been eopstrurta5 +r ot IS
with dams, locks, and slaek-wster :oselher
IN the management and keeping the SAN T. '11
pair and the same shall be paid to the sad 60
company out of any money in the treasury ne.
otherwise appropriated, net exceeding in amonr+
however, the balance charged against the State NJ
Wisconsin upon the sales CT said canal lands :.
ABOVE required, after decucting the allowed
SAID state Tor money paid by her out of the saus
fund. The same to be receiv ed by said canal con-
pany in full payment and satisfaction OF all clsr
OF sald company against the State of Wisconsin
and OF the United States account of said cana
grant, or account of the action of the Territo~
or State of Wisconsin, of the United States n
relation thereto.''
The committee in their report do not argue
that the State is entitled to the five per cent
fund, as your correspondent supposes. They
simply admit it. The whole labor of the ar.
gument is devoted TO an effort to prove that
the canal company is entitled TO have its ex.
penses refunded. They do not notice the
circumstance that the canal company has
been since 1912 in receipt of revenue from
water rents and they arrive at the some.
what singular conclusion expressed in the ex
tract just quoted. Judge Howe's liable and
unanswerable argument" does not defend the
canal company's claim, but is wholly in eucid..
ton of the States right TO the five per cent
fund, subject to the deductions specified IN
the resolution.
The State, then, is to receive the five Der
cent. fund, and to pay back, what all admit
the State ought to pay, the monies used by
the Territorial &c. eminent from the canal
fund and ont Of tie monies so paid to b..
CHtttU ototeS, Stt tutttf pttyS ne CUfttt tONytH
These monies would remain in the Govern
ment treasury if not paid to the company, SO
that TO the State it is matter of Indifferent
whether the company gets them. Your cor
respondent, then, is quite mistaken in saying
that the balance due the State is to be paid
after ded,tctiRg the amount due tie ccaU com.
pany for their expenditures and dematds." AMI
his grief is nncalled for, if not absurd, over
" the folly of the Legislators of Wisconsin IN
refusing to listen to the propositions of the
canal company, when it offered to cancel its
obligations for S25, 900, and allow the State
to receive the full amount of the proceeds Of
the lands and the five per cent. fund !
never heard that the company made any suc-
proposition but if it had been made and as
cepted, quite evidently the State would haze
thrown away S25, 900, since under the pro
posed settlement it is to have all it asked
without paying a cent. l may add that it is
uncertain whether the tardy justice to The
State, contemplated by this resolution, viii
even now be done, oiled as the way may ap-
pear to be by this comfortable bonus to tie
indefatigable lobbyers, who have, | imagine
furnished the committee with its report and
your correspondent with his information.