The L'Anse sentinel. (L'Anse, L.S., Mich.) 18??-current, 1894-09-29
RECEIVER CULVER RESIGNS.
He Cannot swallow Hoke Smiths Deci-
sion IN the Amasa Daily Case.

public moneys and special disbursing
agent for tie United States land Office at
Marquette. Speaking more accurately,
Mr.. Culver will cease to hold that Office
Just as soon as President Cleveland can
appoint his successor and that successor
can qualify.
Sheer disgust at Secretary Hoke
Smiths ''innocent purchasers" decision
10 the case OF Amasa Daily against the
Michigan Land & Iron company Is the
cause of Mr.. Culver's resignation, which
was started to Washington yesterday.
Mr.. Culver simply declines to hold Office
under a secretary Of the interior whose
decisions he regards as contrary to law
and gross outrage upon equity and JUS
lice. Mr.. Culvers resignation reads as
follows:
To THE PREsIDENT-SIR: / have the
honor to tender my resignation as re-
ceiver OF public moneys and special dis
bursting agent at Marquette, Mich, TO
take effect as soon as my successor is
appointed ana quallneS.
The recent action of the interior de-
partment in re Amasa Daily VS., the
Michigan Land Il Iron company precludes
me from longer holding said office, with
out doing violence to my own ideas of
justice and the rights Of my fellow ct-
zens in this district.
beg you to believe that appreciate
fully the honor conferred upon me by
you, and assure you that | feel very
grateful to you for 1t, l am, with great
respect, yours, RUSH CULVER,
MARQUETTE, Mich, Sept, rs, 1894.
Mr.. Culyer was seen last night by a
Mining Journal reporter regarding his
resignation. 81 do not know that l
have much to add,' said he, ITO what
the resignation itself says and to the in
terview which you published in the Min
ing Journal some days ago, just after
returned from comforting with Hon. Don
NJ. Dickinson upon this case. l have
simply made up my mind that l will not
hold Office under secretary Of the inter-
Tor whose decisions are contrary 70 what
after years OF careful study believe is
the law and, TO my mind ut least, fly In
the face Of justice and equity. Ia hold
ing this office am bound by the rulings
of my official superiors. l cannot with
any conscience be bound by such deci.
sion as that of the secretary in the
Amasa Daily case.
"The Michigan Land & Iren company
had full and ample notice that these
lands were unearDed when it pretended
to buy them from the M, II, u 0.
company. l say pretended I'D
visedly, for how could that company buy
honestly something which all along il
knew that the seller did net own?
/ might as well go down to livery
stable and take out a horse ard meet you
and offer to sell it to you. Suppose you
bought that horse, knowing all the time
that it was not mine TO sell? Could you
set yourself up as an innocent purchaser?
OF course not. The liveryman would
get back his horse, and you would lose
your money, too, unless you could catch
me to get that:back.
Now that's just the way with these
lands. The NJ, Ii. Il o. company never
owned them. The secretary himself says
1t never owned them. The N. l.. 4 l.
company knew 1t never owned them.
Yet with q knowledge OF all these facts
the NJ. l.. & !. company pretends TO buy
these lands.C When caught in possession
Of the stolen property stolen from the
United States-the NJ. l.. & /. company
pulls o solemn face and says:
"Yes we know that the NJ, II. & o.
company was a thief; that 1t stole these
lands; bu. we are innocent purchasers
and it is not right to take these lands
from us, even II we did buy them from q
thief and knew that they were stolen al
the time we bought them" And to this
the honorable secretary says: Keep
your plumber, although you did receive
10 knowing 1t TO be stolen
understand, In thus illustrating what
l consider to be the legal ASPECT Of this
matter 1 do not censure individuals.
do not mean to call the individuals who
may chance TO own stock In these cor
porations thieves or receivers of stolen
property. But the fact remains that
these lands we're wrongly certified to the
M, II. &. D. company. That company
never earned them and had no right to
them. 1t had no more right to take them
than have right to walk of With your
evercoat. By whose misfeasance or NAL
feasance these lands were thus wrongly
certified It 10 not very profitable to in
quire. Probably many OF the individuals
concerned In the transaction are no long
or living. But the fact that they were
wrongly certified Is not disputed and
how any purchaser with notice Of that
fact can be called innocent IS more than
1 can comprehend. Yet the secretary
has so decided and rather than ratify by
nv silence and acQuieseDce the mon