The weekly Floridian. [volume] (Tallahassee, Fla.) 1867-19??, 1889-06-25
SWAMP LAND SELECTIONS.

! State Senator from Calhoun, III reply TO
our editorial of June 4th upon "Swamp
Land Selections" In doing so we Will
exercise the right of commenting on the
same.
Mr. Pirronc SAYS: "While writing |
can look over portion of as pretty
a piece of high and dry land as can be
found in the State, claimed by the L. " ~
road and not yet patented This piece OF
| land was the innocent cause of the intro
duction of the resolution" Our CORES
pendent writes from Wewahitchka, and
will no doubt be surprised to learn that
the State has not an acre IN the entire
township selected and araltiny parents.
There was selected, prior to 1857
and long since patented to the State, the
greater portion of the township, but there
is not a single acre "aot yet patented, "
claimed by the State. SO the innocent
cause" of the introduction of the resolu-
ton was no cause whatever, as the State
is not claiming piece of land in the en-
tire six miles square This is but sam
pie of incorrect statements by which it is
sought to vindicate a record. Better
give the numbers next time, Mr.. Plrrong,
and not trust to your vision, for
"Optics keen hath he ween
Who sees what's not to be SEEM
Mr. Pirrong thinks that former selec-
tions being faulty, "and the same mode
of selecting still followed" the latter Sc
lections must be faulty also. In this he
is entirely mistaken. Former selections,
which were confirmed by the act of 1857,
were never examined by agents of
the United States Government. This
practice was changed by Secretary Schurz
in 1873, and since that time no lands have
been patented unless examined by Gov
eminent agent, and found to belong to
the State under the Swamp act. The
committee on Pablo Lands Of the United
States Senate, after an exhaustive lnvestl
CATION, state: 'Before selected lands are
approved or patented to the State, they
are thoroughly and carefully examined i'll
the field BY an agent Of the Government,
appointed by the Secretary the Interior,
and are not approved to the State unless
his report shows them to be in fact swamp
and overlooked lands"
AS to Mr. Jones' evidence, Mr.. Pirrong,
while claiming that we were "grossly
misinformed," really confesses the charge
made. Mr.. Jones stated that he knew Of
high and dry lands that had been selected
as swamp lands. That appeared in
the minority report. But the i'm
portant part Of Mr.. Jones' testimony,
to-wit: That said lands were Sc
lected prior to 1857, and conse-
quently had no bearing upon the question,
was excluded from the minority report,
and Mr.. Jones had to go to the chairman
Of the committee to be set straight on the
journals Why was that portion of Mr.
Jones evidence that confirmed the theory
Of the minority of the committee quoted
in full, and the material portion, that de-
monstrated that it was not applicable to
the lands under investigation, left out !?
The record is against you, Mr.. Pirrong,
and we did not make it, We repeat that
Mr.. Jones' testimony, as given in the
minority report, was emasculated and
made to misrepresent the facts.
In this connection let us ask why was Mr.
Akers' testimony alone quoted from when
it was contradicted by every other wit
ness before the United States Senate
Committee You claim that Mr. Jones'
testimony was emasculated by accident.
Now, the same official report of the
United States Senate that contained MI
Akers' testimony, contained also the testi-
mony Of government officials contradict
ing MIR. Akers, and showing that all his
testimony was irrelevant, as it related to
lands confirmed prior to 1857. 1t con-
tanned also the evidence of Governor
Perry, Comptroller Barnes, Commissioner
Mitchell, Attorney General Cooper and
Treasurer Grill, all sscontradicting Mr..
Akers. The evidence against Mr.. Akers'
statements was overwhelming, so much so
that the United States Senate Committee
unanimously reported against his charges.
In the face Of this you select Mr.. Akers'