The Rock Island daily Argus. [volume] (Rock Island, Ill.) 1872-1873, 1873-05-06
Mr.. HAwLEY AND THE IOWA LAND
GRAB.
Another Letter from Hon J. r. Mccormick,
Member Of Congress from Missouri.

VI on tuc icucc CfuNluk uNtf MI. 1OWnS-
ends letter, but when they read the fol
lowing they viii roost lower for awhile
ARCADIA, Mo-, April 2Sth, 1873.
TO the Editor OF the Union:
DEAR SIR Yours with inclOsed publ
cation reached me to-day, which publica-
tion ssserts that my statement TO you in
a former letter is unfair and untruthfu,
In answer 10 this statement | have only
20 say that the law as it passed and every
word uttered in debate pending its passage,
are matters Of record Neither Mr., Haw-
ley nor can escape a single word, and
am willing TO be judged By an impartial
public.
Judge Townsend, in his letter, Says 10
Mr. Hawley II do not think Mr.. McCor-
mick would intentionally do you injustice. "
This is true. ! do not wish TO wrong Mr.
Hawlcy nor any one else. do think, how
ever. that Judge Townsend, Gen. Ketchum
and Mr. Hawley, all committed an error in
voting for Senate Bill l,Ol5 but impute
criminal intention 10 neither II would
have been better, however ii Mr.. Hawley
in selecting persons 10 viDdicate him had
chosen others than those who voted and
co-operated with him in favor OF the bill
The judge. in his letter, takes the
ground that no law granting lands to this
company, required the lands 10 be located
within twenty miles Of the road Then
why does the law say within the limits Of
twenty miles 2 And why we're not the
lands outside Of the twenty mile limits pat
ented long ago 10 the company, along with
those lands inside the limits of the grant
Why did the Secretary of the Interior re-
fuse ~ pateut lands which, according to
the Judges view were By the terms Of
the law as much the property Of the com
pany as were lands lying within twenty
miles Of their road
W his position is correct what occasion
had the company 10 come 10 Congress for
additional legislation why not apply To
the courts b. vindicate their rights and
protect them from intrusion By clamor-
ing settlers
Again, If Judge Townsend is correct in
his conclusions that the lands could not re.
vert 10 the United States but were subject
I'm ease Of failure by the company to the
disposition Of the Legislature of Iowa. why
should the company spend two winters in
NashingtOnlobying bill through Congress,
when the Legislature of Iowa had the dis
posal of the lands and not the Congress of
the United States Aud why shoRld Judge
Townsend have voted for a bill, the sole
object Of which was b. convey the rover
silnary right Of the general government 20
the lands In question, when in fact the
general government had no reversiOnary
right whatever? The truth is, | think, the
company had not a vestige Of right 10 the
lands in either law or equity. The courts
would not, for an instant, sustain their
claim. The Secretary Of the Interior could
not and would not patent these lands %
them. They could only get the lands by
an act ot Congress Just a. they did
The Judge Is also mistaken in stating
that ] had the floor and could have pre-
scented the petition Of the people against
the bill The Congregational G'0dc will
show that Mr. Ilawlcy yielded me the
huur for a few minutes for debate only
that while on the ApOr ! asked 10 have
read my resolution Of reference that MIR.
llawlcy objected 10 it, being read that
then proposed 20 make II part OF my re-
marks and the Speaker ruled that Mr.
Hawlcy could not prevent me from making
% O part Of my argument After the
previous question was sustained, ] at
tempted 10 have read the petition. To
thi, Mr. Hawlcy also objected and his ob.
lection was sustained By the Speaker.
The floor being assigned by the Speaker
o. Mr. Hawlcy hc had the absolute
right to its control He could yield it
when he pleased, 10 whom he pleased and
for what purpose he pleased lie yielded
CO. me for debate only
The Judge thinks the petition unworthy
az notice knew nothing of the standing
of the petitioners | saw the petition in
manuscript and supposed il came from
settlers IN general who wished 10 obtain
hpmcsteads on the lands and who were
probably poor men but this fact did not
in my mind disrrodit the petition. aud that
the petitioners were men of character in
the state Of Iowa. concerned in the pet
ton was, in afew days proven 10 my salts
faction, a. ] learned a majority Of Repre-
scutatycs OF the people Of Iowa, then
members OF the House Of Representatives
o, that state, passed a resolution asking
the President 10 interposc his veto in be
half Of their people.
The following IL the letter uf the Com
missioner of the General Land Office upou
the subject
sn.-f have the honor t1 state in rrply no your
letter Of Yesterday that this once does not construe
The act approved a. the recent session, TO quiet
Titles 10 certain lands in Iowa ~ making Addi.
iiona grant for the Chicago, Rock-isiand a Pacific
~ ~ W s ss.i my P,s,lous sfsloA
iiuu ~ the lands nader existing grants,
would further statc that there l. nothing ia the
ac' prriudicia to the rights Gl any actnal bona EIDE
settler under the presumption or homestead laws.
~ Tar a. Information Of any sneh rights has been
brGnEht 20 tho attention Of this Office.
Very respectfully, WILLIS DRrMNoSp. Com'r,
The commissioner could, think, with
propriety have added 10 the first paragraph
of his letter But this office does con
strue the act as intending to revive land
grant long since lapsed to the United
States and forfeited by company who OBJ
tanned "a larger grant in lieu Of these lands
along a route differently located
lie could, think with propriety, have
added % the second paragraph Of his letter
The reason no bona fde settlers reside
upon these lands is from the fact that
this Office issued an order To- the local land
offices In Iowa TO reject all applications
for homestead settlements upon these
lands The effect Of that order is
directly in the interest Of the railroad COM
pany, although perhaps not go intended ::
at any rate il kept settlers off the lands
until the company could make the effort 10
obtain the lands from Congress, which it
could scarcely hope to do ii settlers once
got upon the lands.
That settlers had no bona fide right up
on these lands may be true, but it is
equally true that the action Of the general
land office prevented them from acquiring
those rights. That they had rights 90
homesteads on the public domain, no one.
1presume, controverts, aud ! confess my
Ignorance Of the law which authorized the
commissioner Of the general land office 30
issue an order prohibiting settlers 10 obtain
homes upon these lands, after they had re-
verified 10 the United States. IL is true
was earnest in opposition To the bill but
did not intend 10 be bitter, nor do i now
remember an incorporate remark TO have
escaped me In justice 10 Mr. Hawley |
should say, 80 far as now remember. this
was the only land grant voted for by him
during our service together in Congress.
Respectfully j. r. Mccormick.