Wood County reporter. [volume] (Grand Rapids [i.e. Wisconsin Rapids], Wis.) 1857-1923, 1864-06-09

mouse OF Representatives in 7s4a ord
~ committee of the Senate of Wisconsin
-ooi' the conclusions of which are adontad
-. 'ly Without consideration or doubt
ne lao's adverse to the oompany.s claim are
not even alluded to, much less tho o-
ana 1t would seem that thev ve-o
knoWn to the committee. The detarni,a
ton OF the committee in favor Of tho aa
ny Is however matter of little consao,aIo.
TO the State, for they recommend tbat 49,
payment to the company should be made 49,.
out OF funds of the State, but out of the n,.
tlonal Treasury. The language of the srh
stltute resolution reported is:
:" And the said Secretary shall also settle sn5
aLoN TO the Milwaukee i Rock River Canal Com,
pany such sums Of money as have been nronerir
expended by said company in the survsv and 80
non OF sad canal, in the construction thereof az
w;.k as ene same has been constructed, Together
-. uams, locks, and slack water pavigation and
AZ the management and keeping the ssme !, W.
p anu the same shall be paid to the said canal
otherwise orn VI any money in the treasury not
however, the balance charged agai,ss the So ~;
nlsconsn upon the sales of said co,nI 49,
said Stata ~ aIter deeucting the sum allowed
go M Iol money paid by her out of the seme-
Iunu' me same to be reeev ed bv said c.nsI go 49,,
psny IN iuil payment and satisfaction of eli -;
OF sag company against the State of We;
and OF the United States on accnnnt ot "lseohsl1
VI On account of the action of the Territorv
relation thereto WIG oni'eu states In
lie committee IN their report do not argue
that the State is entitled to the FIVE per cent.
iuno' 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 tho
circumstance that the canal comnanv has
been since 1912 in receipt of a revenue from
water rents; and they arrive at the some
what singular conclusion expressed in the ex-
tract just quoted. Judge Howes liable and
unanswerable argument" doesnot defend the
canal company's claim, but is wholly in elucida-
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 per
cent. fund, and to pay back, what all admit
the State ought to pay, the monies used by
the Territorial Government from the canal
| fund and out of the monies so paid to the
United States, the latter pays the canal company.
These monies would remain in the Govern.
ment treasury if not paid to the company, so
that to the State it is a matter of indifference
whether the company gets them. Your cor
respondent, then is quite mistaken in saying
that the balance due the State is to be paid
"Gtter deducting the amount due tie canal com
pany for their expenditures and demands" And
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, 1000, 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 such
proposition; but if it had been made and ac-
cepted, quite evidently the State would have
thrown away $4,000, since under the pro-
posed settlement it is to have all it asked
| without paying a cent. | may add that it is
uncertain whether the tardy justice to the
State, contemplated by this resolution, will
even now be done, oiled as the way may APP
pear to be by this comfortable bonus to the
indefatigable lobbyers, who have, l imagine,
furnished the committee with its report, and
your correspondent with his information.