Wood County reporter. [volume] (Grand Rapids [i.e. Wisconsin Rapids], Wis.) 1857-1923, 1911-11-02


When his clients got title to all Of
this?
Who gave them title? and
What right did their grantors have
to these unsurveyed islands, to the
bed of the stream, and to the water
that flows over 1t?
In answer to these questions he
cites cases in which our supreme
court appears to decide that his eli
ents HAVE title to all that he
claims. He certainly does not mean
to say that the court GAVE them tt
tie! For the most the court could
do in the cases to which he refers,
or in any case of title, is to decide
that the claimant had such title be-
fore the action was begun. So these
citations do not answer the questions
asked.
He knows too, that the decision Of
a court is only conclusive as between
the parties to the action in which
it is rendered, and that the case now
pending is the first case in which
the rights and Jurisdiction of the state
on this question was put squarely III
issue; and that the rights of the u
nited States, and of other states form
ed out of the North West Territory,
and of the people of that territory,
may yet be considered.
After having started out so AFRO
gantly and claimed so positively that
his clients own the Wisconsin River,
and that the state has not now and
never had any claim to it, why does
he feel forced to plead the statue
Of limitations" in behalf of his eli
ents by alleging that they have had
this property now in dispute for more
than a generation, and for nearly so
years. The statute of limitations is
usually regarded as an unconscious
able defense. And no man is allow
ed in court to plead this defense as
against the public, and that in this
respect the public have the same
rights and protection that is accorded
by the courts to infants and to idiots
and that it is lawful for the public
to ask now the very questions l
have asked, and which he has failed
to answer.
In this discussion and in the case
now pending before our supreme
court the riparian claimants have
taken the affirmative, and unless
they establish title to what they
claim the public and the courts must
decide against them
So in conclusion 1 would say by
way of personal explanation to the
attorney for the riparian claimants
Do not go off mad. 1 have said no
thing that should offend you. Come
back and answer the questions ask
ed, and don't descend to personal a.
buse. 1t is entirely out of order. In
my first short article | asked only
for light. You have given me e.
nOugh to enable me to see better
where your clients stand, and for
that | thank you.
But when I interpose objections to
their position and ask a few ques-
tons, instead of answering, you come
back in irony and with mud and
smoke and seek to start a personal
row. You show desire to divert tht
attention of the public to a personals
quarrel.
This is an old trick practiced by de
bators when they have a weak case
to attract the attention of the crowd
to a personal issue. You should not
use it. The intelligent readers of
the Reporter will not be deceived by
it, and it will not strengthen your
case or raise you in their estimation,
You ask me to come out over my
own signature SO that the people can
see who l am. 1t was not my pur-
pose at the outset to take a partisan
view of the question asked, but your
unwarranted attitude has forced me
to take the side of the public. So
L can now answer your inquiry by
saying, 81 am everybody's dog
Whose dog are your"
But what has our personalities to
do with the issues raised? The siren
9Th of your reputation, or the weak
ness of mine is not in issue. II 1
should plead guilty, to all you insin-
uate, and l could plead guilty to that,
and even more, and open the door to
you for personal abuse, it would not
help your case. But I like better to
hold you to the question, and so
still subscribe my name.
COOtri bufOr