The St. Cloud journal. [volume] (St. Cloud, Minn.) 1866-1876, 1875-04-15

holders would Immediately furnish
the money required, and that the Re
ceiyer, Mr.. Farley, would finish the
lines by the Sd of December following,
that being the time at which the land
grant would expire under the act Of
Congress, and it also being the time
at which the Railroad Company
would forfeit its charter under the
State legislation of 1862, if the road
was not completed. The Receiver
put in an appearance in September,
1873, and took possession of these 377
miles Of road and began spreading
himself for the completion thereof
The newspapers Of that time were
filled with articles as to what he was
going to do, and we were all hopeful,
and all so glad that we were to have
the roads finished right off:
Well, this Receiver tore around
considerably, cleaned up some of the
old track north Of Glyndon, looked
over the rotting tie piles and bridge
timber, hung around St. Paul and
looked wise; but mary mile of road
did he build, and it has turned out
that no money was sent to him to do
anything with. All he has done that
amounts to chill Of BEANS" that I
can find out, is, that he made a con-
tract with Mr.. Geo. L. Becker, from
whose management and lease the road
had been taken, to finish it up from
st. Cloud to Melrose and run that
part Of it and pay so much a month
TO- said Receiver for the rental thereof,
and this is the way we get our piece
from St. Cloud to .Melrose operated.
This state Of affairs brings us to the
State legislation of 1874, at which
time the land grant and charter
rights Of the Company had expired,
and both must be renewed or the
whole concern, including Receiver
and bondholders, go to the bad,
and leave us all in a terrible fix. All
hands went to work and secured the
passage of an act by the Legislature
extending the time for the Company
or the Receiver to finish the lines, but
with certain and express conditions,
the most important Of which was the
one which declared all the rights and
franchises which were thus renewed
forfeited to the State soithoa.t any turt1s-
En- act, proceedings, or ceremony eohat-
ever" if the said roads were not fin
ished as set forth in the ack
The Legislature memorialized Con-
gress to extend the land grant, and
by the active exertions of interested
Minnesotians procured an extension
of the same "untl the Sd of March,
1876, and no lo',ger.'' This extension
by Congress had certain conditions
attached to it which are considered
Of great Importance by the railroad
men themselves, and particularly by
Mr.. Delano, who has given his views
upon the subject in connection with
his recent bills before the Legislature
Of 1875, which l shall more fully re-
fer to hereafter. Here is the act of
Congress extending the land grant:
'That the provisions of the act of Con-
gress approved March Sd, 1873, entitled
An act for the extension Of time to the
Saint Paul and Pacific Railroad Company
for the extension of its road be, and the
same is hereby revived and extended until
the Sd day of March, "A: D. 1875, and NO
longer, upon the following conditions:
First. That the rights of actual settlers.
and their grantees, who have heretofore in
good faith entered upon and actually re-
sided on any of said lands prior to the pas
sage of this act shall be saved and secured
to such settlers in all respects, the same as
If said lands had never been granted to aid
in the construction of the said lines of rail-
road.
Second. That the company taking the
benefit of this act shall, before enioyinp anv
rights urder it, by certificate made and
signed by its president and a majority at
least of the directors, and under the seal of
the corporation, accept the conditions con-
| tanned in this act, and file such acceptance
| in the Department of the Interior for record
and preservation"
This act Of Congress was passed and
approved June 22d, 1874. Read the
conditions Of it carefully, particular
ly the first" as it is, in my opinion,
a very important one to the actual
settlers along these railroad lines
much more important than Mr.. Merz
or MIR. Gilman, your Representatives,
| would admit in their remarks on Mr..
Delano's bill this winter.
The letter of Mr.. J. V. Brewer to
the St. Paul Pioneer of February oath
shows what the actual settlers started
to do under this law, and also shows
what Mr.. Receiver Farley and his
attorneys are doing to annoy these
same settlers while proving up their
claims.
Mr.. Delano, while advocating his
bills, claimed that under. the terms Of
that "frst condition." all of these
''actual settlers were entitled to
prove up on their claims, either by
presumption, homestead, or entry at
the price of one dollar and twenty
five cents per acre-in fact placing
them in a condition "in all respects
"he same as i said hands had ,eue,'
been granted to aid IN the construction
"@ the said lines Of railroad" Can it
be construed to mean anything else ?
Mr.. Merz, in his remarks opposing
the passage of the "Delano Bill" said
"that the settlers did not want this