The Leavenworth weekly times., 1878-03-21

purpose
Ii seems TO be the settled doctrine of the
Supreme Court of the United States that
grants OF this nature are not mere naked
trusts, but vest ! beneficial interest in the
State.
In the case OF the United States against
this same company, known as the Usage
Land case, Otto, AS, the court, speaking
OF this act OF Congress, uses this language:
The scope and effect OF the &C; OF 1868,
cannot, in our opinion, be misunderstood. The
different parts harmonic with each other
and present in a clear light the scheme as
etirety. Kansas needed railroads to devel-
op her Resources, and Congress was willing
TO aid her TO build them, by grant Of 4
part Of the National domain"
In this case Of Rice VS.. Railroad Co.,
Black, 31s, 379, the Supreme Court had
under consideration an act OF Congress OF
1854, granting lands 10 the Territory of
Minnesota 10 aid in the construction OF a
railroad, which act contained these words ::
NO title shall vest ia the Territory OF Min
nesota." And the court held, in that case,
by reason of this provision in the act that
no present beneficial interest passed to the
Territory, end that previous to any
rights becoming vested under it, Congress
could revoke the grant. Bu, it will be
seen, at pages 31S-9, and 2Sl, the court
draws distinction between grants like this
one and the Minnesota grant, and refer to
their decision in the case of LessiUs VS..
Price, II How, IS, and Justice Nelson, in
his dissenting opinion, at page $50, again
reiterates the same doctrine and says !:
"The grantee in all such cases takes bene-
fetal interest in the grant, as the represen-
tative OF the persons for whose benefit it is
made
The State OF X ansas was interested in build
ing railroads within her limits, and ,hus
developing her resources and inducing im-
migration to the State, and surely had a
particular interest in securing the purpose
for which this grant was made. This grant
was not made to the Leavenworth, Law
renee Il TT. Gibson K. X. Co., or to any
other company. The power was clearly
vested in the State to select the company
TO build the road, and generally to direct
and control the grant for the purposes
named in the act Of Congress. And it is as
fair 10 assume that the State, as trustee,
having an interest in the grant, could i'm
pose such proper terms and conditions, In
executing the trust, as were not in conflict
with the provisions of the act, and were
best calculated to secure the object contem-
plated; and the company having given It's
consent to such terms ans conditions, and
received the lands, was bound TO comply
with its agreement.
In Sec. = of the act of the legislature ac-
cepting the grant and transferring it to the
railroad company, are these words:
"In con liberation that the Leavenworth,
Lawrence Il IT. Gibson Railroad and Tele-
graph Company shall construct a railroad
and telegraph from the city of Leavenworth,
by way Of the town OF Lawrence
to the southern line of the state, in the di-
rection of Galveston Bay, the
State of Kansas hereby agrees TO grant, bar.
gain and sell to said company all that por.
ton of lands granted TO the State by the
above named act Of Congress, applicable to
the construction of the above described rail-
road"
Said act further provided that the com
paDy should, within six months, file its ac-
ceptance of the provisions of this act, with
the Secretary of State, and in default there,
of all grants and provisions, therein con-
tained, as to this company, shall cease and
be void.
To this act the company filed the follow
acceptance OF March II, 1864:
Resolred, By the President and Board of
Directors OF The Leavenworth, Lawrence &
Fort Gibson Railraod Company, that said
company hereby accept said grant of lands,
according to the stipulAtions of said act of
the Legislature of the state of Kansas, and OF
the congress Of the United States.
Resolred, That, the Secretary be. and he Is
hereby instructed TO transmit 10 the Office OF
the Secretary Of state of Kansas copy
hos n nf ii m
1t seems apparent to my mind that the
first stipulation of the act was that the
company should build its road from the
city Of Leavenworth, and that its accept
ance, by the company, created an obliga-
tion on the part Of the company by which
it was bound to bnild its road from that
point; and even if the st,te imposed a con-
dition not contained in the grant, as it was
acceded 10 by this company, it cannot now
object and it is bound by its agreement.
Baker VS.. Gee Wall, 1888.
am therefore of the opinion that the
state has the right 10 require the said Rail
road company to exercise the franchises OF
| its charter over the abandoned portion oi
its line, because;
FId, Having constructed and maintained
| and operated its road over said line, under
the powers and privileges of its charter, il
cannot thereafter, at its option, abandon the
same.
Second, The stipulation in the 81 section
Of the said act of the Legislature, and the
| acceptance OF said ac: by the company,
created a contract, obligatory on tn come
pany. to build its railroad from the city of
Leavenworth.
The demurrer must be overruled.