From The Capital

(Correspondence of the Hawk-Eye.)

DES MOINES, Feb. 28.

MR. EDITOR:  Considerable interest is now felt in the various railroad questions before the Legislature and in the dearth of more exciting news a succinct statement of the posture of affairs and the matters of difference may be read with some degree of interest.

In 1846 Congress made a grant to aid in improving the navigation of the Desmoines [sic] river.  Subsequently a question arose whether that grant extended above the Raccoon Fork of the Desmoines river.  This question remained unsettled, sometimes being decided by the executive officers at Washington in one way, and sometimes another.  It was held by some to extend only to Raccoon Fork; by others the northern boundary of the State; and still by others to extend to the surveys of the Desmoines in Minnesota.

The question, however, was purely a judicial one, depending upon the construction of the act of Congress making the grant to the State.

In 1859 the Supreme Court of the United States decided the question in the case of the Dubuque and Pacific Railroad Company vs. Litchfield, against the claim to lands above the Raccoon Fork.  Pending the question, however, the State sold some of the lands claimed above the Raccoon Fork to occupying claimants and settlers, and subsequently conveyed all the interest of the State in such lands not before disposed of to the Desmoines Navigation and Railroad Company.  This latter Company should have completed by last December 75 miles of road up the Des Moines Valley from Bentonsport, but has completed only 50 miles as required by law.  The Mississippi and Missouri River Company, it is understood, is also in default, not having quite completed the length of road required by the act granting the lands to that Company, by the first day of December last.  The Cedar Rapids and Missouri Railroad Company have completed the length of road required by the second section of the act.  But this Company was required by the State law granting the lands to it, to build a short line, commonly characterized as a “Plug,” from Lyons to Clinton – by the first day of January, 1861, and that they should not commence the construction of their road farther west than Marion in Linn county, and provided that the Governor should not certify any of the lands to go to the company until the Lyons and Marion “Plugs,” so called, should be constructed by the Company.  These “Plugs” have not yet been built, and the Company commenced their road at Cedar Rapids west of Marion.  The Dubuque and Pacific (now Dubuque and Sioux City) Company, are in default in not completing the length of road required by the law granting the lands to that Company.

The State having conveyed to actual settlers some of the lands claimed under the Des Moines River grant, which are now claimed by the Railroad Companies under the Railroad grants; it is deemed incumbent on the State to adjust these matters in such a manner as to protect the interests of the settlers.  In the same manner there is a conflict of claim between the Railroad Companies crossing the Des Moines River above the Raccoon Forks and the Des Moines Navigation and Railroad Companies; the latter claiming lands within the limits of the Railroad grants which remain undisposed of by the State to actual settlers.

The Governor in his annual message advised the legislature to relieve the State from embarrassment in regard to the settlers to whom the State had conveyed, by requiring the railroad companies to release their claims to the settlers, or refuse any lenity towards the companies.

The Desmoines Navigation and Railroad Company asks the legislature to compel the delinquent railroad companies above the Raccoon Fork, to release their claims to the lands claimed by that company, and quiet their title.

To these propositions, the Railroad Companies interpose the following objections:  First, that no legislation will avail for the purpose contemplated in the Governor’s Message and in the memorial of the Desmoines Navigation and Railroad Company, for the reason that it is a matter depending upon the construction of former laws, and not the enactment of new ones.  Second, that the State possesses such power over the land granted for the railroad purposes only as the act of Congress confers, and could not if the railroad companies were out of the question, do what is proposed, and as the companies derive their power from Congress through the State, they cannot give a title to the settlers or to the Navigation and Railroad Company, for the plain reason that the act of Congress expressly prohibits any disposition of the lands, but to aid in the construction of the respective roads for which they were especially granted.  It may be added that those Railroad Companies which have failed to comply with the conditions of their grants, ask for an extension of time, and the Cedar Rapids & Missouri River Company ask to be relieved from building the “Plugs” before referred to.

The above is a fair statement of the questions and issues on the important subject of railroads in Iowa, and much interest is elicited on account of conflicting local interests involved.

It is very desirable that the conflicting and embarrassing interests involved as above shown should be amicably and justly settled.  The State is bound to relieve the settlers on the one hand, and on the other to discharge its sacred trust in regard to the Railroad grant.  It is also to be hoped that the legislature will exercise an enlightened wisdom in treating the subjects presented, and especially, by all means, deal liberally with the Railroad Companies and encourage them in the investment of the capital necessary to build their roads, without which Central and Western Iowa can never be prosperous.  It is a plain duty of the legislature to protect these enormous investments, and offer every reasonable inducement to Capital to come into Iowa – for these questions do not merely affect the interests of the present inhabitants of the State, but unborn thousands will rise up on the vast and fertile plains, stretching between the two great American rivers, to bless the wisdom or deplore the folly of the present legislature of Iowa.

A further difficulty arises from the fact that most, if not all of the Railroad grants infringe upon the Swamp Lands granted to the Counties.  In some instances, we have a County, a Railroad Company, and the Des Moines Navigation and R. R. Company, all claiming the same tracts of land!  Thus you will see, Hawk-Eye, that Railroad and Land Grant issues are almost inconceivably mixed up.

DACOTAH.

– Published in The Burlington Weekly Hawk-Eye, Burlington, Iowa, Saturday, March 8, 1862, p. 1