The weekly Ottumwa courier. [volume] (Ottumwa, Iowa) 1857-1872, 1864-03-31
oTTUMWA, IOWA, THURSDAY MARCH 81, 1864

What lands in the State of Iowa had ev.
er been set apart by COMPETENT authority"
for any object of internal improvement
save these Des Moines River Improvement
lands? ?LNoue other. " hat work Of Inter
nal improvement was there in the State Of
iowa save the Dcs Moines Improvement
None other. This, the1, was the condition
of things when the Legislature met, and on
the 14th of July, 1855, accepted the R.R.
/ Grant and in the very terms almost of the
original grant, granted the lands to the
railroads. Now, then, let us recur to the
proceedings of that Legislature further.
Not word was said, not q single whisper
was breathed, or single action had indi-
| eating the remetsst suspicion thar any one
believed or even had an idea that the river
lands were included in the Railroad Grant;
and the journal of that session show that
every member Of the Legislature living
along the river where these river lands lay
and in which they and their constituents
-sere interested. voted in favor Of the Rail-
road grant without suspicion that they
were voting the railroads these lands.
! But lest it may be claimed (and believe
it is clsimed) that while this was the gen.
eral and confident belief Of the Legislature
of July, 1855, that made the grant, and Of
the people throughout the State. yet that
some of the shrswd representatives, of the
railroads thought otherwise. desire to
call the attention of members t. the follow
ing facts: ..t ,r-.r..., ..... ......u.
In 1858 the Legislature, on behalf OF the
State. entered into . settlement With the
Des Moiues River Nav igation Company BY
which the State conveyed to the Co mpany
all the lands which had not been certified
to the Keokuk. Fort Des Moines Minnesota
Railroad, reserving SO 900 acres to pay GER
tain claims growing out ofthe improvement
which the State assumed in the settlement.
At the same time, authority was given to
] the Governor !" to issue patents to the pur-
chasers of the Des Moines River Improve.
ment lands. - Now, ask, in al csndor,
| il it is not most preposterous to suppose for
one moment that the State, through its Leg
islature, made this settlement with the Nav
isation Company and conveyed and psten t.
ed 212 900 acres Of land, and reserved so,
600 acres to paw liabilities thst the State
had assumed, when il supposed that she had
in 1856 granted these same lands to the
Railroads. By reference to the journal OF
.'--4 -arainn it viii be seen every member
of the Legislature (cxcept Mr.. Ciune, OF
Burlington, } voted in favor of this Act OF
settlement. showing con,lusively that the
friends and representatives Of the railroads
claim to these lands. How. then, in view
of all these facts, can it be claimed that the
State did not most confidently believe that
her title was good to at least all the lands
above the fork that had been certified and
approved, that she intended to grant them
to the railroads in 1856, that the railroads
expected to get them, The idea is prepos-
tsrous. absurd in the extreme. It is the
most dampable efrontry and impudant au-
dacity for these railroads to put forth such
a claim before this legislature They de-
serve to be spurned from its doors aud their
unholy demands rebuked with our severest
censure--demands, which if complied with,
would bring ruin and sorrow to hundreds
of our citizens whom the State is bound by
every consideration Of honor, justice and d'g
nifty to protect The question is narrow
ed down to this-shall we give to the
grantees Of the State that protection which
tits in our power TO afford, or shall we at
the expense of their ruin acceds to the in
equitable claims of these souless corpora
tons! The railroads through their delin-
qnency and default have placed it in the
power of the State to wiring from their av-
aricious grasp of these lands which they
/ never expected to get, for which they paid
no consideration, for which they have no
claim in equity, and g We them to the
grantees of the State to whom the State
intended to grant them. who believed they
were getting them and who paid con slider
alton for them. Shall we not, as the faith
full guardians of the honor of the State and
the interests of her people, do this, or sh all
we continue upon broken promises and lis
ten to the siren song which these railroad
men so prettily sing until we are "trans
formed into beasts?
But il is urged that il we resume, the IT,
ties Of all the grantees Of the State to the
river lands will be perfected under the le-
gal doctrine Of inurance--that after ac-
ouired interests viii enure to the benefit Of
the grantee grant that in nv opinion
this would be the result. and this. claim,
is as it should be. But, say our opponents,
we are opposed to this for the reason that
distinction should be made between the
individual grantees Of the State before the
contract between the State and the Nav
igatien Company and the grantees Of said
Company since the contiact--that they are
willing to protect the former but not the
latter or at most ONLY those who are actual
settlers. The ground for this invidious dis
tincton between those who hold the pate Mt
and those who hold under the patent Of the
State, IA that the Navigation Company was
an association Of nonresident speculators--
that this Company was corrupt and did not
benefit the State by accomplishing the i'm
possible project Of making the River nav