New-York tribune., 1875-11-30

CONGRESS ACTED FOR SECURITY AND PROSPERITY
or THE COUNTRY.
In addition to all that been said there 1, enough In
the scheme of the act and the contemplated by
to show that Congress intended to enforce on the
Company tho obligation to pay current interest. The
act passed In the midst OF war, when the public
mind alive TO the necessity OF binding the Pacific
States to those OF the Atlantic Confessedly
the undertaking outside OF tho ADJ
ity OF private capital and only by the helping
hand OF Congress could the problem difficult OF solution
under the favorable circumstances be worked out
Local business q source OF profit could not be e1
pected and whether when considered an investments
1t would prove valuable, question for time to de-
tcrmne But the work was, the growing want OF
the country, well the existing military necessities
OF the Government demanded that 1t should be COM
pleted. Under the stimulOus OF these con-
| siderations Congress acted. 1t did not
| act for the benefit OF private property,
but for object deemed essential to the security OF the
country well to the prosperity Of the country Com
PEELED as 1T 10 incorporate private company IN
order accomplish The object it proered the terms on
which 1t would lend ITS aid which, II deemed liberal
now then considered with the lights before 1t not
too liberal for the purpose OF engaging the
attention OF enterprising men, who. u not them
selves capitalists, were in a position to com; com;
~ Iimae e secnTit ptbsr ian 70 Immediate reimburse
ment, and for the obvious reason that the corporation
would require all its available means for construction
aud that the exacton Of an obligation on us pdt 20 pap
the interest tho bonds would tcnd 10 cripple lc ell
"a
was To advance IT, heic were sIeit Ilihs w. ~ ~ ,t g,
connection with an enterprise Unparalleled III lhe hl5tol
a ali. would require as it was supposed IL years.
But these risks were common 10 both parties, aIn '
gress was Obliged its shares and advance he
bonds 10 abandon the enterprise very VpNl e
grant OF lands, however yauabc aiter tne ] iUae VIII MI
ration would be I'm a situation to repay the ad-
vapce Of interest and TO pay the principal when
IL became due. If, on the contrary, the investment
nrovcd IN be failure suecting private persons who in
al N "A
TO the Government the entire property or the corpora
ton. OF which immediate possession could DC taken uuc
"a declaration OF fOrfeture.
TIE PURPOSE or TIE ACT or 1864.
In view Of tho circumstances under which the act OF
1862 passed. and of the purposes TO be acconpSeu
by it, appearing as they do in the title, well as In the
body Of act and constituting as they do the puDc
history OF this legislation, this question seems W
present fairly, in its scope and effect, views that
are inconsistent with the positions asserted
by the appellant Notwithstanding the favorable terms
the read angushed and the effect of that was tho pas
sage of tine amcndatory act of 1854 BY that the grant
of lands WITS doubled the Government loan was made
second instead OF first mortgage and provision was
inserted that only onehal OF the earnings from the Gov
ernment should be required to DO applied to the
payment Of the bonds This amendment was
without doubt intended merely TO modify the
provisions OF the original to allow the Govern
ent TO retain only onchaf the compensat0n Tor sefF-
ices rendered instead of all OF II. Although the proVs
ion is the compensation shall be applied to the pay
uen Of bonds yet IL cannot be supposed that Congress
intended to rcnqush the rights reserved IN the hrst ac
in regard to tie reimbursement OF interest The purpose
NJ Congress could not have been anything than TO
surrender on the part Of the Government the right 10 re-
ad @ m te sccr n lieu of that the right to retain onena
OF the earnings. The change was very nateflal one
intended ~ favor 70 tho company, t' on
the principle contcnded for by the appeiaht ~
would be Of no value , or what ndn,hy pyss'Pe @ @
ceive payment for Onc-halt of the transpor'alon
for the Government II 1t was u De si,9eeten 20
And vet this effect Oi the provision on the theory
that the Company Is ue9'2r 60 olt ~ tb oTcpnmrnt
scmiaunual payment 3t interest II t.c W ~ -, -
consents to the domination of IL security 50 nal ono
purpose what is to become Of the other hall IDcfe
Implication that thc movement Is 10 iSt'. II, anu
have earned the money. II - very clear that inc t'h
grcss OF oGi did moi suppose IN lknS s Goh,e.son
tnat il wOun bo barren OF results But IL Is uhheccsHy
10 pursue that subject farther.
TIE MANIFEST PURPOSE ON TIE ACT or 1871.
The practice OF the Government for series Oh years
was In conformity with the views which have tiAch
until the Secretary OF the Treasury arrested he et
OF the money and directed it to be withheld The action
of tbe Secretary brought the subject to the attention OF
Congress- and tho Act OF March 3, lo1l' was passed.
directing half OF tie money due 10 lDc IA
cifc roads" for service rendered either hereto
fore or hereafter" TO bo paid, leaving open the
question Of ultimate right for legal decision After tEat
another act passed by virtue Of which the suit was
instituted by tho appcecs ia the Court Of Claims 1t IS
conended the purpose Of that act was to replace the
present charter Of the Union Pacific Railroad Company
concerning She provisions wo have SO discussed
but manlfestly the purpose was very different
IT authorized suit to bc brought and such SUIT The
ripts of the Company to be determined and also Inc
rights of the United states. Ths means nothht mort
nor less than remission to the judicial tribunals oi te
country of the question whether TINS Company ana
others similarly Instituted have the right to recover nom
tr Government half OF what they earned by tlansppt-
tiOn, which question was TO be Determined on s lnitN
when the of the charter j. determined II i hai"y
NECESSARY to say IL WOud be Idle 10 authorize su 10
lbs brought IL the intention 90 repeal the provision"
ON which the suit could alone be prtdcaied We cannot
go into an argument on the consequences Whch loi-
low our decision. Consequences are not an argument
TO he considered in tie determination OF questions.
Whether an act incorporation Is less beneficial 10 the
Government thqn supposed, or whether an act oi
Congress is more less polite and wise, II Is not our
n incc To determine when nave declared the mean
i o IT, II there be power to pass IT, our duiy III CON
urction with IL = ended.
Tbe inGl1nent oi tne Court OF Claims is affirmed.