The Kenosha telegraph. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1860-1888, 1871-02-23
TIE MeGARRAHAN CLAIM.

rious condition Of affairs The following
report Of the action of the House las
Saturday will explain to some extent the
case and the views taken of it by the
judiciary Committee to whom it was re.
ferred.
Tie House proceeded with the consd-
Grafton OF the report of the Judiciary
Committee on the McGarrahan CLAIM.
The Commit tee recommends the pass
age OF q joint resolution declaring that
VIM. McGarrahan IS not entitled to the
relief prayed for In his petition, and that
the Committee be discharged from
urther consideration of the claim.
Mr.. Bingham, Chairman oft Commit
tee, made a minority report, accompanied
with joint resolution directing the Sec
retary of the Interior to issue to William
McGarrahan duplicate patent for the
tract of land it being held patent WAS
signed by President Lincoln and was
recorded i'll the land office which was
improperly erased or mutlIated
MIR. Peters, who made the majority re
pnrf. mad" All argument in support OF it,
going over he whole history OF the case,
which was characterized as romance OF
riscalty
Mr.. Kellogg. Of Connecticut, member of
the judiciary Committee, stated the reas
ons which brought him to the conclusion
arrived at in the majority report.
Mr.. Eldredge, another member of the
committee, stated the ground on which
he was in favor of recognizing the jus
tice of the McGarrahan claim.
Mr.. Beck argued that McGarrahan was
entitled to property, the title to which
was in dispute, not between McGarrahan
and the United States, but between Nc
Garrahan and the n W Idra Mining Com
pany.
i Mr.. Kerr, member Of the committee,
made an argument in favor of he report OF
the committee, and stated that McGarra
han was a mere figure in the case, mere
) instrument and tool in the hands of other
} money to prosecute the claim.
Mr.. Cook said that the New Idra Com.
pany was mere trespasser on lands be.
onglng to the United States. His pro
position was that the President of the
United States should take posse sion Of
he property, and put it up at public
!, sale, either as = whole, or iii such quan.
Titles as he might deem best, aud the
proceeds be paid into the Treasury.
: Mr.. Ho chkiss, of the Jud ciary Com
mlttee, presented his views in favor o,
the majority report but contended that
its adoption would not give the propert,
to the New Idra Mining Compuny. Thar
company had No claim whatever Con.
: gress might give it to the New Idra MIN
ing Company, but General Grants ad
mlnistration never would. He went on
also, to argue against the claim of Me
Garrahan, to whom he referred as poor
exile 81 Erin
Mr. Butler, of Massachusetts, another
member of the Judiciary Committee, ex
planned his views on the question. tlt
: SAID both McGarrahan and the New Idra
Mining Company accused each other o
fraud. and he believed them daughter
He did not think either of them had ,
good title. He was in favor of restoring
he mutilated record in the land offic,
containing the pateut TO McGarrahan
: because he did not believe IN cheating !
cheat. He thought the Government
. should sell tae property and put the pro
ceeds in the Treasury.
Mr. Peters effered an amendment t,
Mr.. Cooks proposition, to provide tina
they shall not interfere with the right.
: OF the settlers, or mlners, or their success
sors, who have any rights under the stat
:, utrs of The United States
Mr.. b dredge suggested that Mr. Peter
had better make it at once to give thu
proderty to the New Idra Mining Com
: pany for that would be the effect of hi
: amendment
= Mr.. Peters replied that he only wishet
: to recognize the company's rights, if i
;. had any rights.
:. The provisions question was moved ant
: seconded, and the House adjourned.
f On Monday we have the following
+. Churchill followed Peters in support o
e the majority against McGarrahan FL
4 bridge, OF Wisconsin, spoke on the othe
h side, and Beck made a powerful argu
e ment, drawing the whole House abou
i him He analysed the testimony to shoy
e that patent had been distracted from
r the General Land Office. His inferen
, tlal criticism was very damaging to tx
/ Secretary Cox, and in reply to a ques
l. ton. Mr.. Beck, fully susi aimed the Presi
b dents action in accepting Cox's resgna
}. ton, declaring it that of an honest an,
t good man.
On Tuesday We have the final action 0
the House.
Mr. Cook modified the reso ution offere,
e by him last Saturday so as to make i
, read
: ResoIoed, That in the opinion of th
{ House there is nor sufficient evidence ,ha
q either VIM. McGarrahan or the New Idr
Mining Company has title, either lega
or equitable, TO the land known a