The Superior times. [volume] (Superior, Wis.) 1870-1912, 1872-03-30
WHO IS RESPONSIBLE?

There has been cOnsidefaOie olScuoaioh
of late, as to who is responsible for the re-
cent defeat of the st. Crcix land grant III
the House of Representatives. The matter:
it seems to US is in nutshell. Mr.. Jay
Cooke and his associates of the l.. 5. d NJ.
railroad, and of the Duluth town lot inter
est. wanted the grant defeated, because it's
success would build competing line OF
road in Wisconsin, and would foster at Su-
perior a rival to Duluth. Had the measure
been palatable to Mr.. Cooke and his ring,
every candid man will admit that 1t would
have succeeded.
This is sorry commentary upon the
personnel of the United States Congress,
but if that body has indeed become the
registrar of the edicts of junto of greedy
SPECTATORS, the country cannot too keenly
apprehend its own humiliation in the facts,
nor too speedily address itself to a thor
ouch correction of the evil.
Doubtless among those who voted
against the measure in question, were some
who were honestly opposed to the whole
policy of land grants, though it does seem
that even they might have discerned the
clear distinction there is between a new
grant, and this bill, the object OF which
was simply to declare that the government
would not enforce against the State of Wis
consin a technical forfeiture upon mere
question Of time, the time In this instance
being wholly immaterial, SO far as any pos
sblc interest of the government, or OF the
people at large, is concerned.
But those assallants of the measure, who
characterized it as corrupt "job' and
"swindle" were either grossly ignorant Of
what they were talking about, or else in
tended insultingly to deny the intelligence
and honesty of the whole Wisconsin dele
cation in congress, of the whole body OF
the Wisconsin Legislature, of that portion
Of the Wisconsin press which discussed
the subject, and Of the communities along
the line of the grant from St. Croix Lake
to Lake Superior; for AL these, each IN
their proper character, not only asked an
extension OF time the grant, as just
equity, but besecchIngIy deprecated de-
NAL thereof, as a grievous oppression.
Now which class of these opponents were
inspired by Jay Cooke and his ring? Those
who on principle were opposed to any grant
Of lands in aid of railroads? or those who
bv their yituporative methods on the floor
OF congress, discovered a special malice
against this particular measure? To ask
the question is to answer it. 1t is well
known that Mr.. Cooke Is not unfrienGly to
land grants per se,-not much. And here
We take occasion to express our dissent III
toto from the conclusions of the St. Paul
Press. embodied in the following language
in its issue of the oath inst:
That on the other hand Mr.. Jay Cooke as the fnan-
cal agent and chief stockholder in the Lake Superior
and Mississippi Railroad Company SHOULD feel ex-
tremcIv hostile to a measure which proposed to create
competing line to Lake Superior. and TO some ex-
tat nnoir the value of the stock and bonds held by
himself and his friends III that road IS certainly very
natural nor do we that it affords any reasonable
grounds of complaint against Mr. Cooke, that he en-
noys every available and influence OF leglti
mate character (and he cannot be suspected OF EN-
novnr any other) to defeat this project OF compet
inc line to Lake Superior and to protect his interests
in the L. s. & NJ. r. L. And if the sale OF that road
to the Northern Pacific is contingent on e deie"t ol
the St Cfoix Land Grant, Mr. Cooke Is certainly not
to be blamed for using every proper means to remove
the only obstacle to conSummation in which he has
such vast pecunary interests at stake
All that is too thin, even for whitewash.
Proper means" &c, is good as an edito-
rial shelter, in case of need but-wirh It's
context-as an ethical resort, it won't do.
It is too vague; it is not even ''certain to
\ common intent as my Lord Coke has it.
The editor of the Press is not so simple as
to believe that Mr.. Cooke in his opposition
10 The St. Croix land grant, confined him
self 10 a bona fae resistance based on the
impolicy of land grants in general; or of
this one in particular, IN so tar as the pub
IL worn 10 be affected by it. And when
on Grounds personal to himself he under
taLos 70 influence any member of Congress
against public measure to which pertain
Questions Of duty and equitable dealing on
the part of the government towards Its sub
iects. he goes beyond the bounds OF pro
nretv descends from the plane OF honesty,
and becomes just such a sordid a'l' e'i'"'e q
As is the desplcable tool who, under such
circumstances, would do his bidding IN
congress.
THE DYKE NOT 4 WISCONSIN MEAS 0fN-
The above heading is quoted rom ah