AGAINST CHANGE OF LOCATION OF THE NATIONAL ROAD IN DAYTON

MARCH 21, 1836

Laid before the House, and ordered to be printed

Mr. Mason, of Ohio, presented the following memorials, which were laid upon the table, and ordered to be printed.

To the Honorable, the Senate, and

                        House of Representatives of the United States:

            The undersigned, citizens of the State of Ohio, and residents on and in the vicinity of the line of the National road, between Springfield, in the county of Clark, State of Ohio, and Richmond, in the State of Indiana, beg leave to represent unto your honorable body, that they understood that another application has been made to Congress for a change in the line of said road, between the points above named, so that said road may pass through Dayton to Eaton.

            The undersigned are informed, that within a short period after the line of said road was established, numerous applications were made to Congress for changes in the line of said road, in order to procure its passage through towns and other important points, situated near the line.  One, among the many of these applications, may be here mentioned as a case strongly in point.  The citizens of Newark, in the county of Licking, solicited a change in the line of the road, so as to have it pass through that town; their claim had some show of reason in it, and was strongly urged by the member in Congress from that district, and although the town of Newark is situated but four miles from the line of road, that application, together with all others of a like character, was promptly rejected by Congress.  After Congress, by the rejection of all applications for a change in the line of a work of such peculiar national character, had clearly indicated that it was projected and carried into execution for the benefit of the nation, and not for the accommodation of towns and neighborhoods, all applications for changes in its location entirely ceased.  This course clearly indicates that the settled policy of the Government was, that the national character of the road should be maintained throughout: and that a departure from that policy would not be more likely to take place, than the violation of the stipulations of a solemn treaty.  The same reliance has been placed, and rightfully placed, as the undersigned conceive, upon the national faith in the former case, that they would feel themselves bound to concede in the latter.

            Under that which has been considered the plighted faith of the Government , divisions of real estate between minor heirs, assignment of dowers, transfer of real property, great both in number and amount, have been made, and at prices far above what those lands would possess, should the proposed change be made, that the Government would be subjected to the payments of claims for losses sustained by such a change, to the amount of many thousands of dollars.

            Partitions of lands have been made, with reference to the roads: and which would be rendered of little value without it.  Roads have been laid out, and opened, which would be rendered almost, if not entirely useless, should such a change be made.

            In short, improvements of all kinds, and every thing which could be influenced by it, have been accommodated to the line of the National road as it has been established for years; and should any material deviation be authorized and carried into execution, it could only be viewed as a public calamity, which those upon whom it will fall, feel conscious they have not merited.

            If any thing could add strength to the confidence which has been reposed in the stability of the public authorities upon this subject, -  if any thing could "make assurance doubly sure," it is the fact that, under the authority of an act of Congress of the last session, an examination was made during the past season, by competent engineers, with a view to the change now asked for - a report made adverse to the change, and that report approved by the proper authority.

 With these facts before them, and entertaining these views, with others which might be urged with equal force, the undersigned do most earnestly remonstrate against any change in the established line of the National road.

[Signed by fifty individuals.]

To the honorable, the Senate and

                        House of Representatives of the United States:

            The undersigned, citizens of Ohio, residing in the county of Miami, and several miles north of the located line of the National road, between Springfield, Ohio, and Richmond, Indiana, respectfully represent, that they have ever considered the original and only legitimate object of the road as purely national, and designed to shorten distance, and afford the greatest practicable facility for communication, between distant points of national importance.  And they are decidedly of the opinion that increasing the length of the road, nearly four miles in fifty-seven, as proposed, to embrace the towns of Dayton and Eaton, would be highly detrimental to the aforesaid object, a public injury, and an act of great injustice and oppression towards numerous individuals who have property vested on, and near the located route, and in an extensive country north of it, under a just and reasonable reliance on the permanency of the salutary law which governed the location, and in the strict adherence of Congress, to the wise and only constitutional policy by which it was dictated Congress has repeatedly sustained the foregoing views by refusing all applications for this, as well as all other changes.

            And in the opinion of the undersigned, if any act could add to the obligations of Congress to adhere to the located route, it was performed in the last Congress, by the passage , ( on the ex-parte and secret application of those seeking a change) requiring a review, which law declared, that the location to be made on such review, if approved of by the President of the United States, should "be the established line of the road," and that on such review, the location reconfirmed the direct line, without essential variation, and was approved of by the President, according to the provisions of the aforesaid act.

            Therefore, believing that the change proposed would naturally diminish the public value of the road, and tarnish its national character, and violate the public faith plighted by various laws and acts of the Government, and essentially impair the confidence of the community in out national institutions, the undersigned earnestly remonstrate against the proposed change.

            And believing the measure one of more serious import than might appear from a slight view, they respectfully solicit the very careful and deliberate examination of the subject by your honorable bodies.

[Signed by thirty-two individuals.]

To the honorable the Senate and House of Representatives

                        Of the United States of America in Congress assembled:

            The undersigned, petitioner, residing in Bethel township, in the county of Miami, Ohio, on the line of the Cumberland road, as established by law, between Springfield, Ohio and Richmond, Indiana, respectfully begs leave to represent, that A.D. 1827, soon after the survey and location of the Cumberland road, through the section of the country where your petitioner resides, her, placing implicit confidence in the immutability of the law establishing the same, purchased twenty acres of land at an enhanced price, in confident  expectation of being soon remunerated by the increased value of real property, in consequence of the aforesaid location.  That said tract of land would be comparatively of little value without the road, inasmuch as it lies in a remote situation.  That has subsequently cleared a portion of said tract, and set out an orchard in a position advantageous only in case the road should pass through the present route, and in a place he should have never thought of, except in anticipation of the road.  That in the year 1832, for reasons before stated, and still confiding in the well known and established principles which have been strictly adhered to by your honorable body in former case respecting the national character of the road, and justly anticipating a great rise in real property in consequence of said road, your petitioner purchased another tract of land containing 160 acres, for which he paid $900; that a great proportion of the price of said tract, which lies in a remote situation, except being on the established line of the aforesaid road, was given in anticipation of the road; that the said last mentioned tract has a portion of it divided among children or heirs, with a view to the Cumberland road, and three different improvements made of the last mentioned portion, on two of which improvements houses have been erected at a considerable expense on the line of the said road, and that the remaining improvement was made expressly for the purpose of planting an orchard, and that all the above mentioned improvements were made in situations which would be very inconvenient without the benefit of the said road, and instead of being beneficial would otherwise be detrimental to the property.  That on account of some late transactions, and the consequent uncertainty of the establishment of the road, only seventy acres of the last mentioned tract have been retained expressly for a tavern stand, and the balance sold.  The undersigned deems it his duty expressly to state to your honorable body, that all the above purchases and improvements were made upon the faith of the present location of the Cumberland road.  That he has had in view, not only the road itself, but a convenient market town, which it is agreed by all persons interested and uninterested, must necessarily spring up at the junction of the Cumberland road and the Miami canal, about two miles westward of your petitioner's residence, which last has been long in contemplation and is now nearly finished.  While this section of the road remains almost untouched for a period of something like nine years, your petitioner can approach your honorable body, though with the greatest respect and deference, yet with increased confidence, for the adjustment of his personal claims, which amount, by a reasonable calculation, to 2,000 dollars.  When he reflects that your honorable body have graciously listened for years to the personal applications of many, whose interest induces them to pray for a different location, your petitioner respectfully represents that, innocently on his part, he has been subject to losses which he is unable to bear, and which he humbly conceives it is his duty not to bear without an earnest application of remuneration.  He therefore earnestly prays your honorable body to bestow upon his claim for your consideration a portion of that kind attention which your honorable body have not thought proper to withhold in a case adverse to his claims, and as he humbly conceives not much better merited than his own.  All which is respectfully submitted.

WILLIAM GIESMAN.

February 10, 1836

To the honorable the Senate and House of Representatives

                        Of the United States, in Congress convened:

            The memorial of Eliza Van Cleve, widow of William Van Cleve, deceased, formerly of Dayton, Ohio, respectfully represents: That, in the month of April, 1829, she purchased a lot of ground containing ten acres, situated in the county of Miami, in said State, and Richmond, Indiana; which lot, lying half a mile from any other road, was expected to be rendered valuable by that, but is so situated as to be unsuitable and inconvenient place of residence without it; and that, previous to making said purchase, she was advised that the location was permanently made, and in accordance with the inherent principles of a national work, on the nearest practicable route between certain designated points of national importance, as required by a long-established law of the United States; and that the route was remarkably straight and eligible, and could not be essentially altered, without an utter disregard of every constitutional and just principle on which the law was founded, and has been adhered to, in relation to this as well as every other part of the road.  And after the notorious exertions made by certain citizens of Dayton and others, in 1830, 1831, and 1832, to change the route, had failed, your petitioner was informed that those citizens, together with the Congressional representative from the district, had reportedly given the assurance that they considered the question of a change for ever settled, and that it would never be, by them, again disturbed.  Thus assured, she, in 1833, had a brick dwelling-house constructed on the aforesaid premises, conveniently situated to the road, for the accommodation of an aged mother, herself, and two young orphan children, at an expense of something more than six hundred dollars, which she was able to command only by the exercise of the strictest economy and frugality, in the application of a small annual income for the necessaries and comforts of life.  Without the road, the aforesaid premises are unpleasant and inconvenient for her to occupy, and, for sale or rent, would be deprived of more than one half their value, by an abandonment of this part of the road.

            Under such circumstances, your petitioner has been alarmed by a reported prospect of the success of efforts now making, in violation of former pledges and assurances, by certain persons before referred to, to procure a change in the road, so that it may pass through Dayton and Eaton.  Should a change take place, could your petitioner be satisfied that the public interest required it, her disappointment might be mitigated; still, she would consider herself entitled to remuneration for a pecuniary loss to the amount of, at least, of six hundred dollars, which she will have sustained in consequence of a refusal on the part of the Government to fulfill its obligations to construct the road in the manner and direction heretofore prescribed.  But, believing that such change would be only a local accommodation to those who seek it, at the public expense, she prays that the change may not be made.  Should your honorable bodies, however, be of the opinion that the established laws and policy of Congress in relation to the road have heretofore been founded in error, and based on wrong principles, and that the road already commenced on the direct located route ought to be abandoned, for the purpose of constructing one through Dayton and Eaton, your memorialist prays for a just compensation for the damages which she will have sustained in consequence of having been led to rely on the former laws and acts of the General Government.  All of which is very respectfully solicited by your humble memorialist.

ELIZA VAN CLEVE

March, 1836

STATE OF OHIO, Clark county, February 13, 1836:

            I do hereby certify that I was appointed by the commissioner of Clark county aforesaid, in the spring of 1831, appraiser of the real estate within said county, under an act of the Legislature of Ohio, requiring a re-valuation of all the real estate within said State.  For the purpose of arriving at a more equitable mode of taxation within said State, the act aforesaid made it the duty of the appraiser, in valuing the lands, to take into consideration their local situations as to roads, water privileges, and towns: and in obedience to the laws, I valued the lands along the line of the National road from fifty to one hundred per cent higher than other lands in the county equally good, not situated on the road: and the individuals owning lands along that part of the National road which lies within Clark county, that is now grubbed and ready to grade for a distance of about twelve miles, which will receive no advantages, but will sustain heavy damages in consequence of the road being opened, should the road changed by the way of Dayton, are now paying taxes from fifty to one hundred per cent higher than those living off the road.  Many sites have been purchased at a high price for towns, tavern stands, farms, &c. along that part of the road last mentioned.  Hundreds of individuals will sustain heavy losses, and some, poverty and ruin should the proposed change take place.

            [L.S.]  Given under my hand that day and date above written.

IRA PAGE.

            Sworn to and subscribed, before me, this 13th February, 1836.

REUBEN MILLER, Justice of the Peace.

STATE OF OHIO, Clark County, 38.

            I, Saul Henkle, clerk of the court of common pleas of said county, do hereby certify that Reuben Miller, Esq. before whom the above affidavit was this day made, is an acting justice of the peace within and for said county, duly commissioned and sworn into office, and to whose official acts as such, full faith and credit are due as well in courts of justice thereout.

            In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said court at Springfield, this 13th day of February, 1836.

[L.S.]

SAUL HENKLE, Clerk.

THE STATE OF OHIO, Clark County, 38.

            Before the subscriber, a justice of the peace within and for said county, personally came John Kiefer, of said county, to me well known, who being duly sworn, on his solemn oath deposeth and saith: that in the month of November, in the year 1834, he purchased a tract of about twenty-eight acres of land, lying on the route of the National road, about four miles west of Springfield, for the sum of nine hundred and seventy-five dollars, or a fraction less than thirty-five dollars per acre.  This purchase was made after the road was grubbed, and as he supposed finally located.  The object of the deponent in making this purchase was to erect thereon a building suitable for a tavern, which he expected himself to keep.  This land, which is of but a moderate quality, would not have sold, as deponent believes, for more than half the amount which he paid for it under other circumstances,; and but for his reliance on the route of the National road being permanently established, which would have made it a good country tavern stand, deponent  would not have purchased it at all; much less at the price which he paid for it, which will be exorbitant in case the route should be changed so as to take it by Dayton.  The improvements on this land at the time deponent purchased, were very indifferent, being log buildings erected for temporary purposes.

            Deponent further states that the land is in a long and narrow strip, and lies lengthwise with the road, and the said road having been grubbed, about one-sixth part of the timber that was on it has been destroyed, as well as about twenty-five apple trees, which were standing in an orchard through which the road passes.

JOHN KIEFER

Sworn to and subscribed before me, this 14th day of March, 1836.

REUBEN MILLER, Justice of the Peace.

THE STATE OF OHIO, Clark County, 38.

            Before me, Reuben Miller, a justice of the peace within and for said county, personally came James Donnel, who being duly sworn according to law, on his solemn oath deposeth and saith: that after the engineer of the United States, Mr. Scott, had surveyed the route of the National road west of Springfield, and caused stakes to be driven in it, for the purpose of putting hands on said road to do the grubbing, being in the month of September, 1834, he purchased a tract of land on said route, about eight miles west of Springfield, with a view of making it the site of a town, which he designed laying out.  As this situation was fourteen miles from his residence he was induced to make the purchase with this view alone.  He has twice spoken to the surveyor to have the lots surveyed and laid off, but has been prevented by the information in the first instance, that an attempt was making to change the location of the road, so that it should pass through Dayton (by which change it would pass about three miles from said land); and in the second instance, that the attempt was still persevered in, notwithstanding the adverse report made by Mr. Canfield.  As deponent was induced to make the purchase of the above mentioned tract of land at an enhanced price solely for the purpose above specified and in view of the National road passing through it, he views the change, should it be made, as an act of great individual injustice, for which he shall feel himself entitled to claim remuneration.  He further states, that should the route of the road be changed, he will abandon the purpose which alone induced him to make the purchase.

JAMES DONNEL

Sworn and subscribed before me, March 14, 1835.

REUBEN MILLER, Justice of the Peace.