New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1878-03-14
THE WASTE or PUBLIC LANDS.

EFFORTS TO CORRECT THE EVIL.
ERRONEOUS INTERPRETATION OF LAND GRANT LAWS
IN PAST.
PROM THE REGULAR CORRESPONDENT OF THE TRIBUNE.l
WASHINGTON, March 12.-Sincc the adoption OF
the policy of making land concessions to aid in the
construction Of railroads, more than 215,OOO,OOO
acres have been granted by Congress for that pur
pose This estimate, of course, simply embraces the
quantity within the limits of the various grants and
not the amount which the grantees would deserve II
they completed their lines; for despite the various
Withdrawals and servatiOns made by the Land Office
prevent granted lands from passing out of the pos
session of the United States before the title is trans
ferred to the railroad companies, many thousands
of acres have been disposed Of that the computa-
ton of the actual Of the remaining odd sections
granted as made by the Land Office, reduces that
quantity to about 1s7.OOO,000 acres. And even
thls is probably much too great an amount. II has
always been the practice to give to tho land-Rrant
companies indemnity for all lands which might APP
pear, when he lines or routes of their roads were
fixed, TO have been previously sold reserved or dis
posed of by the General Government. In other
words If at the time the grant was made one
half of the lands had been disposed
Of indemnity allowed to the roads
therefor that is, the roads allowed TO select
all equal amount of land outside or the limits
of the grant. This was done by virtue of
for indemnity. Now 1t appears that this practice
was erroneous The question considered by
the Supreme Court in the of the Lcavenworih,
Lawrence and Galveston Railroad Company against
the United States, commonly known as the " Usage
Coded Land Case" and the Court held that indem-
nifty under that grant could only be gwen for lands
lost inside OF the granted limits by the action Oh tue
Government between the date of the passage of the
act and the date of definite location of the road The
Supreme Court, passing upon the Question, rear
hrmed the doctrine formerly announced - that
tract lawfully appropriated TO any purpose be-
comes thereafter severed from the mass OF pubic
lands and that 10 subsequent law or proclamation
will he construed 10 embrace it or to operate upon
it, although 10 exception be made of it," The Court
further said
prcsenii and covered all the odd sections which should
appear tae location Of the road to have been within
however, depend upon snch locat oD attached ~
c cg,d "p ~at ' be iacnted until the line Of tie
road was marked on ON tne ground Pn, as sooi az az,
not obtain all OF them within The original limit ny rca-
the power OF sale or reservation claimed py e
amount of substituted lands The latter could not on
tempt T. ave tits ef ct 10 the clause receive,
either in the scheme Of the act or IN anything that mas
been urged by SOL "o" Ser 9S SIr'nE 10 perform
the offce of making new grant with.
| a'r,ady made Instead OF TINS the WORDS employed
show clearly It's only purpose is TO give sections ne
me Government between the oute Of the grant and the
ocatou the road. TINS construction gives effect to
e whole statute and make, each part consistent Win
lac other But even the clause were susccribo ni
attended meaning II Is sun subject To ana 'i,n,Ga
by the puvIso which excludes all lands reserved az me
da;e OF tue grant and not simply tnoSe onhd 10 nc re-
CONTINGENCY had been provided FOR n.he can.e
If the provso and not take effect MN incn. IT. M"o
be wholly unnecessary, and these lands being wlthn e
terms OF the prOvso, as we constr" H. oows thit
they are absolutely ami Internationally excepted rom
The Tant and II makes no difference whether or not
they cub equcny became part of the puDc 'ahuS Oh
| tio country. .
IT has been asserted in the interests of the rail-
road companies that the words in the opinion "f
the Supreme Court referred to were simply ob't1
d;ctnm but the Land Office did not 50 consider
them TO assert that the words were without mcan-
| ing 49, in the opinion OF those who have
! examined the matter and are competent to
! iudge folly. The occasion OF their utterance
was the point raised and urged by the company,
that If the Usage coded lands did not pass under its
grant, they could he selected ~ Indemnity. SO the
very principle in question became necessarily IN
VOWED III the case and the language may be ac-
ceptrd as having the force OF an adJndlcatIOn. Inc
| peculiar words Of this particular grant may teen
nicaly limit the application OF the decision but, az
the lana grant system II one OF Uniform ornIin aiu
! the same rule to all. In support OF tins opinion
! attention may be attracted TO the fact that
Congress couln ohiy gram 'nuo ~ ,.,,or'i,,,
| 1t had absolute possession anu oMneisiiiip,
and hence, by authorizing the companies
| To claim indemnify for lost land "granicd as alOIe-
said" il would only give lands III lie" Tor those ac,
finally granted, and not IN lieu OF those when had
passed from the possession OF the government De-
fore the grant made, and which. therefore. were
| never granted. 80, -, an {. ,;
| As has already been said, the Land Office Is being
governed by this doctrine IN us present adjustments
of tIe various grants, and IN steadily prosecuting
examinations for the purpose OF aScertainihg thc
exact status of the grant 10 each company. treat
| far only four roads have been thus examined. In
| the case of the Wisconsin Central grant, the
Secretary Of the Interior has decided that the COM
| pauy has already received patents Tor 4l,soo;oo
acres in excess of what IL Is entitled 10. ana that
the company will only receive about 5S|OoO acres
the limits of ITS grant, or 100 acres when IL was
estimated il would receive before the dOclTihe iaiu
| down by the Supreme Court was accepted NJ the
Land Office While this s the only road OF when the
! exact status ha been ascertained and upon when
| Che department has acted, 1t may De sara
| road will be found to have received more
| land than was contemplated by congress
| wn.n the grants made. The grants 10 tne
companies named below have been examined by lne
| Commissioners of the General Land Omce. Inc
| frst column of figures shows the number OF acres
! and the second column shows the n'imber OF acres
| they woud be entitled TO under the supreme Court
! decisiOD 49,, ,,s.xn.
Name NJ Road Rdings Couri Deefon
Ua.tings ana Dakota (Aiinn). ...L25Ii4l59 7l553%G
southern Pachc imam nne 5.7iJ477bs t.2sJsOolO
| In some of the earlier grants IN the more thckly
] a Ina fiyV ~