Prescott journal. [volume] (Prescott, Wis.) 1861-1871, 1864-06-11

House of Representatives in 1912, and :.
by committee of the Senate of Wiscons;,
in 1861, the conclusions of which are adon..5
apparently without consideration or dopI,
The facts adverse to the company's claim A..
not even alluded to, much less the argument.
and it would seem that they were quite ~,
known to the committee. The determin,
ton of the committee in favor of the conn.
ny is however a matter of little conseuueno.
to the State, for they recommend that Tho
payment to the company should be made, not
out of funds of the State, but out of the Da.
tional Treasury. The language of the sub.
stitute resolution reported is:
"And the said Secretary shall also settle an.
allow to the Milwaukee Il Rock River Canal Com
pany such sums ef money as have been properIv
expended by said company in the survey and loe:
ton of said canal, in the construction thereof a,
far as the same has been constructed togetber
with dams, locks, and slack-water navigation ana
in the management and keeping the same in p
pair and the same shall be paid to the said cana
company out OF any money in the treasury not
otherwise appropriated, not exceeding in amount
however, the balance charged against the State Of
Wisconsin upon the sales of said canal lands az
above required, after decucting the sum allowed
said State for money paid by her out of the same
IunQ. The same to be received Dy SalQ canal con-
pany in full payment and satisfaction of all claims
OF said company against the State of Wisconsin
and OF the United States on account of said CANA
grant, or on account OF the action of the Territory
or State of Wisconsin, or of the United States, IN
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 ha,
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 " able and
unanswerable argument" doesnot defend the
canal company's claim, but is wholly in elucidl-
ton of the States right to the five per cent
fund, subject to the deductions specified il
| 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 tie monies so paid to Tie
United States, tie latter pays tie canal company
| These monies would remain in the Govern.
ment treasury if not paid to the company, SO
that to the State it is matter of indifference
whether the company gets them. Your cor
respondent, then, is quite mistaken in saving
that the balance due the State is to be paid
"qtter defpcting tie amount die 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, 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 such
propositions but if it had been made and ac-
cepted, quite evidently the State would have
thrown away s25, 900, since under the pro
posed settlement it is to have all it asked
without paying cent. may add that it /:
uncertain whether the tardy justice to thC
State, contemplated by this resolution, vii
| even now be done, oiled as the way may ap
pear to be by this comfortable bonus to the
indefatigable lobbyers, who have, imagine
furnished the committee with its report, ana
your correspondent with his information.