Webster City freeman., 1913-10-14

to land north of that point. AS the
contract between the state and the
navigation company contemplated a
conveyance to the company of all
the land included in the grant, the
company as parties in interest would
not agree to the compromise, and it
was not made.
About this time, congress granted
to the state for the construction of
four railroads, alternate odd num-
bered sections for six miles on each
side Of each road. One of these roads
was the Dubuque & Pacific railroad,
and its proposed line ran east and
west across the state from Dubuque
to Sioux City and crossed the Des
Moines river at Fort Dodge. While
the railroad grants excepted lands,
already disposed of, the Dubuque and
Pacific railroad company was not
willing to accept an Interpretation
of the River land grant that would
deprive it of several thousand acres
of land where the two grants inter-
sected, and it therefore insisted that
the River land grant only extended
as far north as the Raccoon Forks.
Suit was instituted to test the
matter and in December, 1859, the
supreme court of the United States
in the case of Dubuque & Pacific
Railroad Co. VS.. Litchfield, report
ed in 23, Howard 65, held that the
grant did not extend north of the
Raccoon Forks.
The extent of the grant having
thus been judicially determined, the
disputed lands north Of Raccoon
Forks were in November 1860
thrown open to settlement under the
preemption laws.
In the meantime, the state and
the River land company had been
having trouble over the River i'm
pIONeIheHl toHli dct. III FicN VI thC
unsettled state of the River land
grant and the existing probability
of their receiving only the lands ad-
joining the river within the state of
Iowa, the navigation company was
not using any undue eXertion to
complete its contract. Expenses and
salaries were piling up and being
presented and yet comparatively
very little in the way of river i'm
provement was being done. Com
plants were made which moved Gov
crnor Grimes to suggest the neces-
sity Of an investigation in his mes
sage to the general assembly in
1856.
A Joint committee from the house
and senate was appointed and the
following are extracts from its re-
port.
"Your committee are Of the opin-
ion that no legal contract was ever
entered into by the state Of Iowa
with the Des Moines Navigation &
Railroad company.
"By the terms of what is claimed
to be the original contract, the
whole improvement was to be COM
pleted by the first Of July, 1858, and
one-quarter of the work done annu-
ally. Now, according to the evidence
before the committee, 1t appears
that there were extended by the
company up to the first Of December,
1856, a period Of nearly two and a
half years in actual construction,
.s1S5,954.44, and in engineering and
incidental expenses, $1O4, 1904.
Your committee can find no reason
able excuse for the eXtraordinary
sluggishness with which the work
has been prosecuted, compatible
with an honest purpose Of prosecut-
ing the work to completion for the
sole consideration of receiving in
pavment therefor the lands graated
by congress, and the use and rents
of the Improvement and water. Now
/ if the d. NJ. n. & r. r. Co. had q
bona fde' capital actually on hand
| of nearly 81 100000, paid in for the
prosecution of the work, as they
ought to have according to the
amount of. stock issued, and haC
hith ertO prosecuted the work will
that yigor and energy which its i'm
portance demands, and which tht
people Of the state had right L
expect, the condition Of things
would be very different; but as thu
work has been done, in the opinion
of your committee, under contrac
without any validity in law, and !
said contract had been valid, in m
matter according to , the spirit ant
meaning Thereof, your committe
are Of the opinion that said com
many are Justly and eQuItably enti