Grant County herald. [volume] (Lancaster, Wis.) 1850-1968, 1878-10-24
The HON. OWEN KING!
As a Reformer, Econo-
mist, and Friend Of
the Taxpayer.

The Hon. Owen King asks the people Of
this district to send him to Congress as the
representative and mouthpie ce of new party
whose watch-word is purity, honesty and re-
form, and whose right TO exist as party is
based upon the alleged corruptness of both the
Republican and Democratic parties and their
consequent unfitness TO be longer entrusted
with the management of public affairs.
Mr. King was member of the Wisconsin
Assembly of last winter, sent there from the
north district of Iowa county to represent
the Reformers and Economists of that dis
trict. The people ofthis Congressional dis
trict have the right to know his conduct in
the Assembly and from that judge how he
would be. likely 10 vote in Congress should
he happen to be elected to that body, upon
the numberess steals that are continually pre-
sented there. He had many opportunities,
while there last winter to put himself on rec
ord upon such questions, and we propose TO
examine the record he made.
An inquiry as to his course while in the
Assembly previous to 1878 would probably
not be without interest to the tax payers Of
the district. But as his friends would doubtless
plead, that whatever he die before that time
he did as a Democrat, and while subject to
to the corrupting influences which they allege
of the old parties, we will confine ourselves
to his course last winter, when no such ex-
cuse can be claimed for him, when if ever,
he was free from such influences and when
his reformer's uniform was new and fitted
him without wrinkle.
The Calkins claim was before the Assem-
bly, and although it was shown and proved be-
yond question, by the journals of the Legisla..
ture and the records of the Supreme Court,
First. That Calkins never had any Just
claim against the State at all TO any amount
whatever.
Second That the work he pretended to
have done was never authorized by law.
Third That what he did in fact do was
not for the State but for such of the counties
as chose to accept it; that such counties as
did accept it, and not the state, were liable to
pay him. -
Fourth. That what he did, for whomsoev-
err it was done, was not worth exceeding ST.
l2s.00 (senate Journal Of 1861, p. 629.)
I Fifth. That the Legislature Of 1859 an
propriated to him S1250.00. mucn more than
The whole job was worth, and he accepted ii
in full and receipted il in full; that he pre-
sented his claim to the Legislature of 1861
and il was by that body decided that he had
no claim after full investigation.
Sixth. That in 1865 he besieged the Leg
islature .oi inoie ray, auu received 25zo.OU
more, which was to be finally in full and he
again receipted TO the State in full, making
receipt in full No. 2.
Seventh. That in 1869 he again besieged
the Legislature for another payment in fill,
was paid S1465 % more on the same claim,
and again receipted in full, making receipt in
full No. 3.
Eighth That in 1874 h c came again and
was paid $2600.00 more, which was to be f.
nally and forever in full, and executed receipt
in full No. d.
That, notwithstanding all this, with all
these receipts in full for the same claim star
ing him in the face Owen King siezed every
possible occasion to vote in favor of giving
Calkins S32S1 .42 in exchange for another fl
nal receipt in fnli. See Assembly Journal,
734, TAB, 744, 745 and 1872 The bill finally
passed the Assembly by one majority SO that
Kings vote cost the people of The State 3d.
2S142. For a history of this famous claim,
as it was presented before Mr.. King when he
gave those votes, see Senate Jouanal 1878, D.
533 TO 544. @
But this is not the worst. A claim was pre-.
scented in the Assembly by Morgon L. Martin
of Green Bay, for something ovea Seventeen
Thousand dollars. and Mr. King also did
what he could by his vote to levy that sum
upon the State and give it to Morgan L. Mar
tin. See Assembly Journal 1878, pages 2lS
1874.
The State did not owe Martin one cent oil
this SIT 900 and upwards, which the reform
candidate for Congress in this district pro-
posed TO give out of the State treasury.
The history of the claim told as briefly as
possible. is this:
Morgan L. Martin was not only member,
but president of the convention that adopted
our State constitution. He was moreover a
lawyer and cannot claim to have been igno-
rant of its provisions. And not only so, but
he left the chair and took the floor in that
convention and struggled hard to have a pro-
vision incorporated in it, permitting the State
to embark in works of internal Improvement
as New York, Illinois and some other States
had done.
But with the example of Illinois then app
parenty hopelessy involved by its ventures
in canal building before their eyes the men,
bers Of the convention not only refused to
adopt Martins proposition, but instead adopt
ed provision-sec. 10, art. 8-expressly for
bidding the State 10 contract any debts for or
be party to carrying on any such works but
permitting the State TO accept such grants of
lands from Congress for such purposes, and
to use the avails of such grants, and pledge
or appropriate the revenues of such improve
ments TO aid in making them. But 1t was ex-
pressIy prohibited from in any way mourning
any debt or liability in or about any such
work which would in any way become a
charge upon the taxpayers.
Before the adoption of the Constitution
Congress had donated ceItain lands t. the
state to be used in carrying on works of inter-
nal Improvement, and the State accepted the
grant and by so doing agreed to use the avails
Of them in the work of constructing internal
Improvements.
In 1851 Martin proposed to the State that
he would do the work then inlet upon the
Fox and Wisconsin River improvement at
price named by him and to take his pay in
certificates of Indebtedness to be paid out of
the proceeds of the land grant, and ut of the
revenues OF the canal when built.
The Legislature, by CHI. 179, laws of 1851,
accepted his proposition and provided in that
act that The work should be paid for in month
Iy estimates, and if cash was on hand from
the sale of the lands it should be paid over; if
not, scrip should be given him signed by the
Presi lent of the Board OF Public Works,
countersigned by lis clerk for the amount due
him, which should be charged upon as lands
Of the grant and upon the grant and upon the
tolls of the Improvement, and should draw IL
per cent. interest. ag
The then Governor OF the State made con
tract with Martin purporting to be under au-
thority Of this act, which contained in addi-
ton to the foregoing provision that the Gov
ernor should cause this scrip TO be authenti-
Gated by the great seal of the State, provi-
sion which was plainly not authorized by the
ac. Ct the Legislature.
Under this contract Martin did some work
and there became due to him as he claimed
for such work, some Five Thousand dollars
See 5, Pinney's r., p. 400.
BY this time change Of administration mad
occurred, and the then Governor refused 10
authenticate the scrip by the great seal upon
the ground, among others, that the law dio
not require or authorize him to do it.
Martin applied to the Supreme Court for
writ of mandamns to compel the Governor 70
authenticate the scrip, and his application
was denied on two grounds: First that the ST.
preme Court had not original jurisdiction of
the case, and second, that if the Court had iu-
risdiction, Martin was not entitled to tae
mandamus because the law under which the
contract was made (act of 1851, above cited)
did not authorize the governor to agree to so
authenticate the scrip. That when he obtain
ed--as he did obtain--his scrip from the
board of public works II was all he had any
right TO ask for. 3 Pinney, p. 407 end 408.
Martin stopped work under his contract
We will not stop to inquire whether it was
because it was not profitable, because the
laads did not sell as fast as WIS hoped, or be-
- ~ IL