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.

up on inc lence cfuNlng over MT. TOWNS
ends letter, but when they read the fol
lowing they viii roost lower for awhile
ARCADIA, Mo-, April 2Sth, 1878.
To the Editor Of the Union:
DEAR SR Yours with inclosed publ
cation reached me to-day, which publica-
ton asserts that my statement 10 you IN
a former letter is unfair and untruthiul
In answer 10 this statement | have only
80 say that the law as il passed. and every
word uttered in debate pending its passage,
are matters Of record. Neither MIR. Haw.
ley nor can escape single word, and !
am willing 10 be Judged by an impartial
public.
Judge Townsend, in his letter Says 10
Mr. Uawley Il do not think Mr. McCOr-
mick would intentionally do you injustice
This is true. ] do not wish 10 wrong Mr..
Hnwlet 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 LOIS; but imputee
criminal intention ~ neither. IL would
have been better, however, It Mr. liawley
in selecting persons 10 vindlcate 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 p And why were not the
lands outside Of the twenty mile limits pat
cntcd long ago % the company, along with
those lands inside the limits Of the grant
Why did the Secretary OF the Interior re-
fuse ~ patent lands which, according To
the Judges view, were by the terms of
the law rs 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 70 come 10 Congress for
additional legislation why not apply 10
the courts n 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 to the United States but were subject
lin case of failure by the company to the
disposition Of the Legislature OF Iowa, why
should the company spend two winters in
Washingtonlobying a bill through Congress,
when the Legislature of Iowa had the dis
lilNhl III Allt ltlAA1 anu fibA AAiG AhllAlNo va
the United States And why should Judge
Townsend have voted for a bill, the sole
object Of which was tO convey the rever-
sionary right of the general government to
the lands in question, when in fact the
general government had no reverslonary
right whatever? The truth is, ! think, the
company had not vestige Of right 10 the
lands in either law or equity. The courts
So Ah.,ag-
claim. The Secretary OF the Interior could
not and would not patent these lands 10
them They could only get the lands by
an act of Congress, just as 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 hill The Congressional Gi05e will
show that Mr.. Hawley yielded me the
floor for few minutes for debate only;
that while on the aoor | asked to have
read my resolution Of reference that Mr..
ilawley objected 10 its being read that |
then proposed to make it part OF my re-
marks and the Speaker ruled that Mr.
tlawley could not prevent me from making
il part Of my argument After the
previous question was sustained ] at
tempted to have read the petition. To
this Mr. ilawley also objected and his OBJ
lection was sustained by the Speaker.
The floor being assigned By the Speaker
a. Mr. Hawley, he had the absolute
right to its control He could yield it
when he pleased 10 whom he pleased and
for what purpose he pleased EIe yielded
a. me for debate only.
The Judge thinks the petition unworthy
ot notice ! knew nothing Of the standing
Ot the petitioners. | saw the petition in
manuscript and supposed it came from
settlers in general who wished 10 obtain
homesteads on the lands and who were
probably poor men but this fact did not
III my mind discredit the petition, aud that
the petitioners were men of character in
the State Of Iowa, concerned In the peti
ton was. in atew days proven ~ my salts
faction, as ! learned a majority of Repre-
sentatiyes Of the people Of Iowa, then
members OF the House Of Representatives
of that State, passed a resolution asking
the President to interpdse his veto in be
half Of their people.
The following Is the letter Of the Com.
missioner Of the General Land Office upon
the subject
stR az have the honor IN state in reply 10 your
letter oi yesterday that this once does not construc
the act approved at the recent session, To quiet
titles 20 certain lands In Iowa a. making addi-
tunal grant for the Chicago. ROck-isand a Pacific
tauroad. il merely cOnfrms the previous action
Of the guycrnment authorities IN making certihua-
tiyu OF thc lands undcr existing grant=,
would further statc that there l. nothing In the
act preludicial 10 the right Of any actual bona Ade
settler under the presumption or homestead laws,
brought b. tho attention Of this Office
Very respectfully WILLS DHuMNoND. Com'r.
The commissioner could, / think, with
propriety have added TO the first paragraph
" his letter But this Office does con
strue the act as intending 10 revive a land
grant long since lapsed ~ the United
States and forfeited by a company who oh
tanned larger grant in lieu Of these lands
along n route differently located
lie could, / think, with propriety have
added % the second paragraph Of his letter
The reason no bona iide settlers reside
upon these lands Is from the fact that
this office issued an order to the local land
offices IN Iowa 10 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 80 intendedl
nj any rate il kept settlers off the land,
until the company could make the effort t,
obtain the lands from Congress, which i
could scarcely hope to do II settlers ono,
got upon the lands
That settlers had no bona fde right up
on these lands may be true, but it i,
equally true that the action Of the genera
land office prevented them from acquiring
those rights That they had rights q
homesteads on the public domain, no one,
4presume, controverts, aud ! confess my
ignorance Of the law which authorized the
commissioner Of the general land Office d
issue an order prohibiting settlers to obtain
homes upon these lands, after they had re
verted 10 the United States II is true
was earnest IN opposition To the bill, but
did not intend to be bitter, nor do / nov
remember an incorporate remark to hay,
escaped me. In justice to Mr. Hawley
should say, 50 far as | now remember, thi
was the only land grant voted for by hin
during our service together in Congress.
Respectfully, j. X. MCCORMICK.
|
The New Railroad Law.
The legislature. after an all winter lob